NCJW believes that prayer should be conducted in the home or the appropriate religious institution and not in the schools. NCJW further believes

that no prayer or style of worship is uniformly acceptable to all religious traditions. Even if it is non-denominational, prayer or silent meditation could have a religious connotation. Since individual silent meditation is already permitted and "voluntary" prayer on an individual basis is not denied, what is the purpose of altering the Constitution? Would this not put a stamp of conformity on individuals in a pluralistic society?

Let us not create a situation which divides our children by providing

an atmosphere which exacerbates religious tensions. Instead it would behoove our elected representatives to concentrate more of their energy on education

strengthening our troubled public school systems.

Improving the emphasis

on quality education, rather than undermining the First Amendment to the Constitution by violating the principle of church/state separation, would better serve the needs of America's young people.

The National Council of Jewish Women, therefore, urges Senate defeat of any proposal which would amend the Constitution to permit organized prayer or meditation of any kind in the public schools.

Thank you.

Mr. SCOTCH. The last panel will consist of two organizations. I understand that Americans for Democratic Action's representative had to go because of the lateness of the hour. Their statement will be included in the record as if presented, and the last witnesses today are the Seventh Day Adventists and the B'nai B'rith International. If representatives from those groups would kindly come forward, you will be heard.

[The following was received for the record:]

My

name 15 Leon Soul.. I

the National Director of Americans for

Democratic Action, a national public-policy organization with members in every

state.

committee

I want to thank the for giving me the opportunity to testify today. The question of whether prayer should be required in public schools is difficult to deal with because of the enctional atmosphere of the debate. Supporters of school prayer terd to label opponents as anti-religion or even godless. Such statements are distorted and misleading; they are also irrelevant. Religion unquestionably holds an important place in our society, but that place is clearly not in a federally-funded public school system. In writing for the first Supreme Court decision in 1962, Justice Black stated: "It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."

-

The fundamental issue is constitutional. Prayer in the school voluntary or otherwise -- violates the First Amendment by definition. In at least a dozen decisions from 1947 to 1982, the United States Supreme Court banned governmental assistance to religion and specifically outlawed prayers and Bible reading in the schools. The advocates of the prayer amendment must logically reject the basic premise underlying these Supreme Court decisions; they must attack the delicate balance which the court has constructed between the establishment and the free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Father Robert F. Drinan, who is president of Americans for Democratic Action, a former Member of Congress, and (of particular relevance to this issue) a Catholic priest, has summed up the principles at stake: "The advocates of school prayer are in effect asking the Congress and the country to overthrow the philosophical, juridical, and constitutional synthesis which the court has evolved over a period of about two generations. The prayer amendment, in other words, is not a simple modification of the Church-State detente evolved by the Supreme Court; it is in effect a repudiation of it."

To say that the "voluntary" or "silent

state is not promoting religion because prayer is meditation" is a semantical dodge. Public school teachers, principals, or school officials, who are all sanctioned by the government, are directing and conducting the prayer or the meditation. Authorizing such government-employed officials to determine what constitutes a non-denominational prayer is, in effect, giving the government authority in religious matters. The fact that all children are required by law to attend school reinforces the notion of government sponsorship of religion. This directly contravenes the Supreme Court's ruling that the government, either through its legislature or school officials, must not initiate, promote, or sponsor religious activities in the public schools. The prayer is taking place on school property, which is supported by the taxpayers. Allowing the student who does not wish to participate to leave the room is not protecting his or her freedom, but is rather excluding that individual from the classroom because of state-sanctioned religious activity; it is forcing that student into the role of outcast.

Subtle pressure, whether purposeful or not, from the teacher and from the student's peers is not in any way conducive to the free practice of religion. To speak of a 6 or 7 year old, or for that matter, a 13 or 14 year old child exercising his or her constitutional rights in such an atmosphere is absurd. There is no question that teachers, who are required to conduct the prayers, are authority figures. Their attitudes, whether positive or negative, towards the prayer will certainly affect impressionable children.

Offering to create a non-denominational prayer is not the answer. First, who would decide what that prayer will be? The government? Certainly that is an instrusion into a sphere where the government has no place. Writing for the Court, Justice Black concluded that the First Amendment "at least" means that "it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people." Second, such a prayer is offensive to those parents who do not wish to bring up their children with any religious beliefs, and it is offensive to the intensely religious practitioners for whom prayer is a sacred activity accompanied by certain practices or words. As the National Council of Churches has pointed out in previous testimony, orthodox Jews pray a specific posture with prayer shawls and head coverings, while devout Christians would find a prayer that did not include the name of Jesus Christ unacceptable.

in

It is for this reason that many religious groups and leaders oppose school prayer they object to the secularization of prayer and the dilution of its significance.

39-015 0-84--38

A prayer amendment tends to assume the nature of a "quick fix" for the perceived godlessness and secularism of the public schools. But, at best, a prayer is a minute or two a day in the 30 hours of instruction per week in the average public school. Much more significant and meaningful would be the sort of courses about religion approved by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and by all educational and civil liberties groups. These courses would teach about various religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, instead of trying to provide ersatz spiritual leadership. The courses would seek to eradicate religious illiteracy by elevating objective knowledge about religion to a point of academic respectability. Courses of this nature do not raise any constitutional questions. Such instruction could be given for students who elect it and possibly for others. It would be infinitely more significant and substantive than a moment of prayer. And it would be legally non-controversial, academically sound, and religiously beneficial.

In the 1952 Zorach vs. Clausen decision, the Supreme Court permitted released-time religious education so long as it is conducted off the school premises. For those sincere persons who desire to integrate the secular knowledge transmitted in the public schools more closely with the sacred, there is a way through released-time that is constitutionally permissible and organi— zationally feasible.

I find it ironic that an administration which is always promising to remove excessive government interference from the lives of its citizens is now trying to impose itself in one of the most sacred and personal areas of an individual's life. And it is doing so in the face of a specific constitutional prohibition and very clear and consistent Supreme Court rulings.

I hope that this committee will oppose any such efforts to weaken the Constitution and the Court, and to curtail one of our most basic rights.

###