194th General Assembly (1982) ACCS Resolution 11. RESOLUTION ON THE PROPOSED PRAYER AMENDMENT REFERENCE X-176 (See page 108.] Whereas the President of the United States has submitted to Congress a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States with the following language: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any state to participate in prayer”; and Whereas the President stated that the amendment was necessary in order to "restore the right to pray" and "to allow our children to pray in school," though this right is secured to individuals under existing law and constitutional interpretation; and Whereas the intended effect of the proposed amendment is to permit a return to the situation that prevailed in many states twenty years ago, when officially sanctioned prayers were required or spon. sored, by public schools in classrooms; and Whereas columnist James J. Kilpatrick recently wrote: "It is pure sham to contend that in such circumstances 'prayer and meditation' can be made 'voluntary. Only the boldest children, willing to make themselves conspicuous, will walk out...The best solution is to leave a child's religious instruction where it belongs, in the home, in the church, in the temple, in his mind and heart. And when a child learns what prayer is all about, get him to read Malthew 6:5-8. The passage contains some marvelously sound advice"; and Whereas the 175th General Assembly (1963) of the United Presbyterian Church stated that: Because of the conflicts stemming from the pluralistic nature of our society, because of the abuses that have plagued every historic attempt at a theocratic society. because God has given all persons) freedom to choose or reject the redemption offered in Jesus Christ, and be cause organic entanglement of church and state inevilably deprives (persons) of the full exercise of that Godgiven freedom religious observances should never be held in a public school or introduced into the public school as part of its program Bible reading and prayers as devotional acts tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual and should be omitted for both reasons (Minutes, 1963, Part 1, pp. 185-186) and; Whereas the National Council of Churches, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Synagogue Council of America, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregation, as well as other religious and societal groups, have expressed their opposition to this attempt to legitimate government-sponsored religious observance: Therefore, the 194th General Assembly (1982) of the United Presbyterian Church, convinced that religion does not need and should not have the sponsorship of government and that attempts to provide such sponsorship will inevitably generate sectarian and interreligious conflict: 1. Declares its opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on school prayer, believing that officially sponsored religious exercises tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual, which compromise authentic faith and also threaten the erosion of constitutional protections. 2. Urges United Presbyterians not to be misled by references to officially sponsored classroom prayer as "voluntary" or by allegations that their children do not now have the right to pray in public schools. 3. Directs the Stated Clerk to communicate this resolution to the members of Congress. VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER MONDAY, MAY 2, 1983 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:53 a.m., in room 226-SD, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Thurmond and Grassley. Senator HATCH. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late this morning. The Republican Senators have had a conference on the budget, and that is, of course, one of the most important things we are currently doing in the U.S. Senate. But we appreciate having you here today. Secretary BELL. I might say, that an academe tradition say that you are to wait at least 30 minutes for a full professor, and we think that the chairman is at least a distinguished professor, so you are really not overtime. Senator HATCH. You may be the only one who thinks that way. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Ladies and gentlemen, this represents the second of 2 days of hearings by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on the proposed constitutional amendments relating to school prayer. As with our first day of hearings, we are fortunate to have with us today an outstanding group of witnesses with a diverse variety of perspectives on this important issue. I would emphasize again, as I did during our first day of hearing, that the issue here is not simply public school prayer; an equally important issue is how constitutional policy is to be formulated in a free and democratic society. Whatever one thinks about the merits of public school prayer, the Supreme Court's decisions in such cases as Engel and Abington can only be seen as having altered the previous prevailing understanding of the establishment clause of the first amendment meant. There decisions have raised serious questions in the minds of many constitutional scholars Is it possible to conclude that the so-called wall of weak O erected by these and other recent cases was intended by the found ere as they drafted the first amendment? Is it possible to reconcile these decisions were consistent with the policies and practices that grew from this amendment during the first 175 years of our Nation's history? Is it possible to argue that these decisions were at all consistent with the will of the people? Whatever one thinks about the merits of public school prayer, can they reasonably deny that it was the Supreme Court itself that amended the Constitution with their decisions in Engel and Abington? They amended the historic meaning of the first amendment, not through the normal constitutional route of article 5, not through the deliberate process of fashioning a new consensus for a revised first amendment, but through the expedient of judicial review. Because the majority of the court disliked what Madison and Jefferson and Randolph had put together, they took it upon themselves to serve in the capacity of a continuing constitutional convention. In the process, they utterly transformed the constitutional provision that had been previously compatible with a wide variety of contacts between church and state into one in which some unabridgeable "wall of separation" exists between the expression of religious values and the state. As Professor Cord pointed out in his testimony on Friday, the first amendment of Madison and Jefferson, as opposed to that of Warren and Brennan, was compatible with tax-supported church schools, chaplaincies, trusts to spread religion to the Indians, construction assistance for churches, and of course, prayer within public institutions. It is not necessary to endorse any of these policies and I would not support several-to ask whether such an important part of the Constitution ought to be altered by five men on the Court rather than by the kind of deliberate consensus required in the amendment article of the Constitution. If we are going to have a permanent Constitution, one that is not written on water, I believe that we must rely on the citizenry to alter the supreme law of the land, not judges. As a member myself of a minority religion, I have only the greatest respect for the enduring principles of the first amendment. Properly understood, the first amendment stands for tolerance in religious affairs, protection of those who profess faith in minority religions or in no religion at all, the avoidance of preferential treatment toward any religious denomination and the maintenance of the distinct spheres of church and state. None of these principles, however, demands the neutrality toward religious values as a whole, nor indeed the apparent hostility toward religious that seems to be emerging from such decisions as Lubbock and Brandon. While our Constitution established a secular republic, it was never intended to establish one that was neutral on whether or not religion was to flourish. I look forward today to the testimony of our witnesses and thank each of you for being here with us. We will turn to Senator Thurmond at this time for his statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY The CHAIRMAN. Today's hearing marks the second of 2 days of hearings by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on the subject of proposed amendments to the Constitution relating to school prayer. This builds upon 3 days of hearings on the same subject held last year following the introduction of the administration's proposed amendment, as well as an additional day of hearing on Senator Denton's equal access legislation. Let me emphasize once more that there are two distinct issues involved in these hearings. First, there is the Lubbock issue. In a circuit court decision last year, a Lubbock, TX, school board policy was found unconstitutional which permitted students to use public school facilities for student-initiated religious activities on the same basis as student-initiated nonreligious activities. Thus while athletic clubs and political clubs and social clubs can conduct extracurricular activities on public school grounds, Bible study clubs are constitutionally forbidden to do so, according to the Lubbock decision. Second, there is the issue of school prayer. In a series of Supreme Court decisions, particularly those in Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schemp, the practice of voluntary classroom prayer at the outset of the school day has been found in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I would observe, as I did last week, that the fundamental issue involved in the Judiciary Committee's focus is whether the Federal courts have departed from the original intent of the drafters of first amendment, as well as from the understanding given it for the first 175 years of our Nation's history. The clear intent of the Founding Fathers was to ensure that the Federal Government not establish a national church or provide preferential treatment to any single religious order or denomination. The purpose was to prevent any national eccesiastical estab lishment. There is absolutely nothing in the history or development of the first amendment until the past generation to suggest that it was designed to erect any wall of separation between the state and all expressions of religious values. Indeed, there was a profound awareness of the religious roots of the Constitution on the part of the Founders and a desire to ensure that the religious impulse re mained a part of the Nation's constitutional and public fabric Mr. Chairman, when the Supreme Court in the mid-1966)'s ruled that voluntary prayer in the public schools was in violation of the Constitution, they engaged in amending the Constitution from the bench. In one fell swoop they overturned long-estabaned points policies of tens of thousands of communities across the country. A moment of prayer at the start of the school day, a policy that had enriched the founding of the Republic, was suddenly viewed as a menance to the first amendment. The average child who a placed in the classroom for 8 hours a day is allowed and encont aged to develop intellectua..y. phys.ca.y, and emotionGJ But even a moment of structured prayer is treated as unconstitutional. The child is educated in political theory and sex education, and hygiene. He is taught baseball and football. He is instructed in music and art and literature. He is taught everything that goes into the building of individual character, but is absolutely forbidden from even a brief moment of prayer at the outset of the school day. Because I disagree with the court's prayer decisions and because I believe that a well-rounded education requires some measure of personal introspection, I support a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Engel and Abington. And I look forward to the testimony of all of the witnesses to assist us in developing the most responsive proposal that we can develop. Senator HATCH. Our first witness this morning will be a good friend, the Secretary of Education, the Honorable Terrel Bell. Secretary Bell testified on the equal access issue before this committee last Thursday, and will testify today on the subject of voluntary school prayer. Mr. Secretary, we are so happy to have you with us here today. STATEMENT OF HON. T.H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY BAUER, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR PLANNING, BUDGET, AND EVALUATION Secretary BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I will submit my statement for the record, give a brief summary of it, and then be available for questions. Senator HATCH. Without objection, all statements as written shall be submitted to the record in full. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary. Secretary BELL. As I am sure this committee is aware, the President has a very deep and abiding interest in this amendment. What may not be as well known is that Americans across the Nation as well have an interest in it. A poll recently conducted by the New York Times found that between 69 and 85 percent of the population approves of voluntary school prayer. And a Washington Post poll conducted as late as May of 1982 found that 75 percent of the American people support a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in the public schools. And as the chairman indicated, for a large portion of our history in our schools there was no this prohibition against prayer. In fact, for the first 170 years our Nation's experience under the first amendment permitted States and localities to make the decision on this somewhat delicate subject. And along about that time in 1962-63, the Federal Government through its judicial branch got into the act, and we have had a great amount of confusion and difficulty over it. I might just say, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, this is commencement time, and especially at commencement time is there a considerable amount of confusion in schools about whether or not they are in violation of the law if they permit prayer to be conducted in school buildings during commencement exercises. |