believers. These days we are constantly asked to be "tolerant" and "open minded" to almost every humanist banality which exists. We can all agree, at least, that it is highly desirable for people to be tolerant of differing religious beliefs and that religious bigotry and prejudice have no place in our society. We couldn't agree more. Likewise, it should not be too much to ask for atheists and agnostics to demonstrate the same attitude towards believers. Prohibition of school prayer is demonstrating officially sanctional intolerance towards believers. Conversely, the restoration of school prayer will, hopefully, have the desirable consequence of restoring an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for those who worship God by those who do not.

ROTE PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS

Some opponents argue that school prayer is not desirable because the prayer (in order to not be offensive) will likely be a watered down, compromise prayer which is meaningless. Therefore, better no prayer at all. They also state it is not the business of schools to instruct children in how to pray. This argument, however, totally ignores the real value and purpose of prayer in schools.

We would agree that the school is not the place where one should be taught to pray. This should be done in the home and church. But the purpose of school prayer is not to teach children how to pray, or what is a meaningful prayer. The purpose of school prayer is to reinforce an attitude of reverence for God and to invoke His guidance during the school day. Consequently, the prayer offered does not necessarily have to be deep and spiritually uplifting to accomplish this goal.

Establishing an attitude of reverence or piety is the real issue. In addition to academic learning, public school education also helps to reinforce basic values that we in society share and wish to see inculcated in our children. Discipline and respect for authority, for example, are values which virtually every parent wishes to see encouraged in our public schools. Discipline and respect for authority are imperative in creating the necessary environment training conducive for learning. Likewise, reverence for God is another widely shared value which the vast majority of parents wish to see acknowledged and reinforced in our schools.

It is the act of supplication to God which fulfills this highly desired value. Whether it is accomplished by a rote or "meaningful" prayer is not ultimately important. Even reduced to its most common denominator, any prayer, i.e., acknowledgment of God and that He does rule in our lives, provides a valuable and positive motivation of conscience. Especially when the philosophy of the education establishment is overwhelmed by instruction in humanist precepts, the act of prayer offers a counterweight balance and reinforcement of spiritual values.

In conclusion, we believe one of the most important reasons for restoring school prayer is because the people want it. Nationwide Gallup Polls in 1974 and 1980 showed that 77 and 76 percent respectively of those surveyed favored the return of prayers in public schools (Washington Post, May 16, 1980). For over 20 years the American poeple have been waiting for Congress to remedy this problem. We hope the Congress will act with dispatch to favorably adopt S.J. Res. 73.

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much. Let me just ask all three of you how do you respond to the suggestion that has been made in front of our committee on this particular issue that religion belongs solely in the church and in the home and should not be in the schools?

Mr. Dingman.

Mr. DINGMAN. Senator, I would say that, first of all, the total absence of religion would be the imposition of religion. It would be the imposition of the humanistic religion. And so it is virtually impossible to be totally value free and religious value free.

Certainly, there are many things that should be done in the home and in the church. And again I would go back to the example that in the matter of sex education, they say that is not being done in the home; therefore, we have to do it in the schools. Well, we would encourage it to be done in the home.

And certainly it ought to be done there. I would not use that as the argument for saying it has to be done in the school because it is not being done in the home. But certainly there should be no

prohibition from those who wish to voluntarily assemble. And it is important that we remember that a classroom moment of prayer is not the sole issue here, as has been addressed very widely; we are talking about the fact that it also prohibits under current law and practice the voluntary assembling of students together after school for extracurricular Bible study purposes, and for groups that wish to bow and ask the blessing over their lunch.

There are a number of other ramifications of this. So certainly it ought to be done in the home, but it should not be banned from the school.

Mr. DUGAN. Mr. Chairman, my response to that, if you are seeking answers from several of us, is that essentially the founding fathers of our Nation did not envision limiting the practice of religion to the homes and churches. Their reference to a divine providence and prayers for their deliberations, as the early Congresses, and so forth, are an indication of that.

Perhaps we need a different perspective from overseas from one who now lives in this Nation. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a month or two ago said that when prayers in school are forbidden, even in a free country, it is not much more tolerable than in Communist countries, only that it lacks the hammering in of atheism.

When someone like an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn simply cannot grasp those gymnastics which have put us in a situation where we are forbidden the free exercise of religion to our students, then it is a pretty serious question in my view.

Senator HATCH. That is very interesting. Who would compose the school prayer under Senate Joint Resolution 73, in your opinion, and do you have any concerns that we would end up with an official, State approved, and authorized prayer that has been stripped of any significant meaning for the devout student?

Mr. JARMIN. I would like to make a comment on that. First of all, I do not think that the arguments by some who have testified that the State has no right to compose a prayer is correct. I think they are wrong. I think constitutionally the State does have the right to engage in composing prayers, and anything else.

I mean, if you take that argument to its logical conclusion, Reverend Halverson, the chaplain of the Senate, is an agent of the State-it would be unconstitutional for him to compose a prayer before the Senate.

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the President cannot issue a decree on a proclamation of prayer day, which is going to happen this Thursday. Now and I could list many, many other examples. And you have chaplains in State legislatures all over the country composing prayers every day. They are indeed agents of the State.

So, I think they are on weak ground. In fact, I think they are on totally false ground to argue that an agent of the State cannot draft a prayer. The question is: is it desirable? Now, in that case, I would argue that I do not think it is desirable for the State legislature or the executive branch of a State to be in the business of drafting prayers, although I do think it is totally correct and proper for a local school district to do that. In most cases, probably what they will do is compose an interfaith commission to come up with a prayer and have that prayer offered in the classroom.

So I do not think it is unconstitutional for that to happen, but it is desirable that it be done at the local level, not at the State level, in my opinion. Also, if you have a State prescribed prayer, I also object to it on one other ground, because it does not take into account the different religious mix within the State school districts.

For example, in Beverly Hills they may want to say one kind of prayer and in Barstow, CA, a different kind. One school district might prefer silent prayer, another school district vocal prayer. One school district may want to have prayer and another may not want to have it at all. So I think these decisions should be left to the local level. And I think I have enough faith in the judgment and the wisdom and the tolerance of the people at that level to make those judgments.

So I would argue that while the State has that right, I would eliminate it at least at the State level and leave that up to the local school boards.

Senator HATCH. How would you all respond to the charge that voluntary school prayer can never be truly voluntary because of peer pressure among school children?

Mr. DUGAN. Mr. Chairman, what we support is student initiated prayer, and that is voluntary in the most literal sense of the word. And in relation to the last question, we did testify-I personally did last July before the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressing concern about the State composing a common denominator kind of prayer. It was our suggestion at that time, and we stand by it, that the proposed constitutional amendment be modified to narrow it in this sense, that the State shall not influence the form or content of any prayer. We are talking about schools; we are not talking about chaplaincies of legislatures or the U.S. Congress, but in reference to schools particularly.

So we have expressed that kind of concern already. But we are supporting student-initiated prayer and other religious activity in our quest for equal access and the protection of religious free speech, and so on.

Mr. DINGMAN. Senator, two points: one is that we must remember that we are not talking about just classroom prayer. The phrase that is easy to get lost in the dialog is "and other religious activities," as we have described at some length. So let us not

Senator HATCH. Are you talking about equal access also?

Mr. DINGMAN. That is correct. That is correct. Now, I personally would not favor a prescribed prayer by anyone, whether it be county, State, Federal, anyone, because that to me seriously diminishes the value of the prayer. Now, I realize that we have a commonly used Lord's Prayer. That is fine. I have no objection for those who want to use it. But I would say that a mandated prayer would be totally inappropriate, and I would hope that it would be left to the local jurisdictions to decide how they are going to handle the matter.

Now, as you know better than I, the proposed constitutional amendment does not prescribe or proscribe. It simply says that the Constitution does not ban prayer. And, therefore, it would be left up to other levels of jurisdiction to decide how to handle it.

39-015 0-84--17

And I would be happy to rely upon the wisdom of the local electorate to decide with their school board elections, et cetera, how they wish to handle it locally. And whether I choose the particular form that they would choose is irrelevant. If it reflects the local wishes, then I would yield to that. And certainly I have been in situations throughout my life where perhaps my viewpoint may have been a minority viewpoint, but that did not distort me, nor do I think that it distorts others to be in the presence of a viewpoint which they do not particularly share.

Senator HATCH. In dealing with the Lubbock situation, that issue, whether it be by constitutional amendment or by statute, which would you think would be the best approach: to require local school districts to provide equal access to religious and nonreligious extracurricular activities, or simply to make clear that nothing in the Constitution prohibits school districts from adopting this policy if they desire to adopt it?

Now, if this is a true issue of free exercise, should it be mandatory or should it be voluntary? If it is a true issue of free exercise, I would imagine that the policy ought to be mandatory.

On the other hand, if we are primarily concerned with local control, it probably ought to be optional. So I would like to hear your viewpoints with regard to that.

Mr. DUGAN. Mr. Chairman, might I ask if we could have permission for our counsel, Forest Montgomery, who is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court and who filed a friend of the court brief for NAE and the Christian Legal Society and some other organizations in the Lubbock case, to comment on this.

Senator HATCH. We would be glad to have that comment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that believing as I do in local control of educational matters, that it ought to be left to the option of the States.

May I share with this committee a general impression I have of both the equal access hearings and the hearing on the President's initiative here today. Let me say that I share some of the concern of those who object to the President's amendment and the equal access approach. When I was in the sixth grade in elementary school, we used to say the Lord's Prayer. And looking back on it, I can see that that was very insensitive in so far as a Jewish student might have been present in the class. I do not even know. I was insensitive to that circumstance. So were the school officials.

I think we do need to be concerned about the sensitivity of the students. But it seems to me that those who object to the President's initiative, and the equal access proposed legislation of both Senators Denton and Hatfield, are saying to the Congress or saying to this committee-you are confronted with a problem that defies solution.

They are wholly negative in their testimony. I have heard every conceivable objection, but there is nothing constructive about their testimony. I do not mean to single out the testimony that you are going to hear from the bar of the city of New York, but I consider it symptomatic of the problem. In a statement of 53 pages and 141 footnotes, they devote one sentence to the Brandon and Lubbock cases and an accompanying footnote.

They do not even discuss Tinker against Des Moines, in which the Supreme Court recognized that high school students enjoy constitutional rights, including free speech and religious speech.

It just seems to me that American ingenuity would not be overly taxed if we were to work together to try and formulate some sort of relief for the present situation, because as matters stand today, a lot of students who would like to share with one another religious expression are being denied that opportunity.

If a school makes its facilities available for student groups-and I do not consider making physical facilities available the functional equivalent of state sponsorship-it seems to me that in that situation all groups, regardless of the ideas they are expressing, should have an equal opportunity.

And just as the political remarks of the student endorsing socialism or communism does not mean that those remarks are sponsored by the school, so to me it seems that both the parents and the students ought to be able to appreciate the difference between student-initiated activity and activities sponsored by a school.

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much.

Gentlemen, we appreciate you taking time to appear before the committee. We may submit some additional questions to you. We appreciate the excellent testimony you have given. And I appreciate personally the help you have given this subcommittee.

Our last panel is also made up of institutional representatives. We will begin with Mr. Dunn, James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Committee on Public Affairs. We will also hear from Ms. Gail Merel, representing the Bar Association of New York City. She obtained her doctorate at Harvard conducting research on the development of the first amendment. And our final witness, representing the National Education Association, which asked to testify this morning, is Bernie Freitag, a classroom teacher since 1961 and vice president of the association.

We are happy to have the three of you here, and we will begin with Mr. Dunn.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES M. DUNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAPTIST COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS; GAIL MEREL, BAR ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY; AND BERNIE FREITAG, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. DUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If it is possible, I would like for the full testimony, which has been submitted, to be entered into the record. And I will give you the 3-minute version.

Senator HATCH. Without objection, all of your prepared statements will be placed in the record.

Mr. DUNN. Thank you.

I am James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. It is composed of representatives from eight national cooperating Baptist conventions and conferences in the United States with a current membership of over 27 million.

The committee seeks through a joint witness to apply the traditional Baptist concerns for religious liberty and proper church-state