[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H715-H721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     REGARDING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 31) expressing the sense 
of Congress regarding the display of the Ten

[[Page H716]]

Commandments by Judge Roy S. Moore, a judge on the circuit court of the 
State of Alabama.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 31

       Whereas Judge Roy S. Moore, a lifelong resident of Etowah 
     County, Alabama, graduate of the United States Military 
     Academy with distinguished service to his country in Vietnam, 
     and graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, has 
     served his country and his community with uncommon 
     distinction;
       Whereas another circuit judge in Alabama, has ordered Judge 
     Moore to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments posted in his 
     courtroom and the Alabama Supreme Court has granted a stay to 
     review the matter;
       Whereas the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact 
     on the development of the fundamental legal principles of 
     Western Civilization; and
       Whereas the Ten Commandments set forth a code of moral 
     conduct, observance of which is universally acknowledged to 
     promote respect for our system of laws and the good of 
     society: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental 
     principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just 
     society; and
       (2) the public display, including display in government 
     offices and courthouses, of the Ten Commandments should be 
     permitted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 
31, introduced by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Aderholt. I want to 
commend Mr. Aderholt for introducing this resolution and the gentleman 
from Illinois, Chairman Hyde, for agreeing to discharge the Committee 
on the Judiciary so that the House may consider this resolution without 
further delay.
  This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the Ten 
Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles and that the 
public display of the Ten Commandments should be permitted.
  There is a situation in the district of the gentleman from Alabama, 
Mr. Aderholt, in which the State circuit court judge has been ordered 
by another circuit court judge to remove the hand-carved rendition of 
the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom and to cease inviting 
clergy to lead juries in prayer prior to their hearing cases.
  Our purpose here today is not to pressure any court to rule one way 
or another in any particular case; rather our purpose is to state our 
support for the display of the Ten Commandments and to acknowledge that 
the Ten Commandments are the foundation for the legal order in the 
United States and throughout western civilization.
  Of course, as we all know, the Ten Commandments have, both for Jews 
and Christians, great religious significance, significance which far 
transcends their role in the development of our laws. But that 
certainly does not mean that we should censor or prohibit their display 
in public places.
  There seems to be some confusion about what the Constitution requires 
with respect to the display of items or documents with some religious 
significance. The first amendment, contrary to what some people 
believe, does not require us to drive every such document or symbol 
from the public square.
  As Justice Rehnquist has stated, ``The Establishment Clause does not 
require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may 
have a religious significance or origin.''
  The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the 
constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. 
Only one lower Federal court has addressed this issue. In that case, 
Harvey versus Cobb County, a Federal district court judge ruled a copy 
of the Ten Commandments could not lawfully be displayed in the Cobb 
County courthouse unless the Commandments were part of a larger display 
that included other documents of historical and educational 
significance.
  The Ten Commandments, held by Moses the Lawgiver, are found in the 
chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court. Moses is one of the 23 marble relief 
portraits of the lawgivers displayed over the gallery doors of this 
Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, if you will look back at the back of the Chamber, you 
will see Moses displayed prominently looking down over this Chamber. 
There are several other religious symbols and items on the Capitol 
grounds which time does not permit me to name. In addition, we begin 
our daily business in this Chamber, as we did today, with prayer, 
either by a chaplain paid for by the House or by an invited member of 
the clergy.
  In conclusion, let me say the Constitution does not require and the 
people of this Nation do not desire Government officials to strip all 
documents of historical significance which enshrine standards of 
morality from public view simply because they have a religious basis or 
origin. I urge the passage of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our religious freedom is the foundation of our free 
society. This country was established on the high ideals of allowing 
everyone to practice the religion of their choice without interference 
of government. This resolution, unfortunately, represents a retreat 
from that very principle that has made us a great and tolerant Nation.

                              {time}  1415

  This case we address today involves a judge whose refusal to obey a 
court order is being reviewed by an Alabama Supreme Court. This is not 
a matter on which we have jurisdiction. The rulings to date are 
completely consistent with the precedents that have been long 
established by the courts. This case is still pending and we should not 
interfere with these proceedings.
  If the hanging of these Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, then it 
really does not matter what we think. We should abide with the law. If 
they are constitutional, then let the process go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I think one of the important factors is that one's 
religious beliefs should not be a factor in whether or not one will 
receive justice in America's courts. This is the issue presented by 
this amendment. It is not about the Ten Commandments or one's feelings 
about the Ten Commandments. It is about a courtroom remaining a fair 
place for all religions. The courtroom loses its neutrality when it 
endorses a specific religious doctrine. Despite my own beliefs in favor 
of the Ten Commandments, I do not believe that my personal views should 
be forced on others seeking the objective forum of a court of law.
  The first amendment reads in part, therefore, that Congress should 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof. The posting of the Ten Commandments in the 
courtroom is an intentional governmental establishment of religion. The 
courts have already spoken on this issue.
  In Stone versus Grahm, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law 
requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. At 
least one Federal court has already decided that the posting of the Ten 
Commandments in a courtroom is unconstitutional, and there is no 
precedent to suggest that this resolution could possibly be 
constitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt], the sponsor of this resolution.
  (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution [Mr. Canady] for his support of this 
resolution, as well as the numerous friends and colleagues who have 
approached me in support of Judge Moore in Gadsden, AL.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. This 
resolution does not endorse any one religion but, rather, states that a 
religious symbol which has deep-rooted significance for our Nation and 
its history should not be excluded from the public square.
  When Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States in 1831 to study 
how our democracy was working, he was

[[Page H717]]

struck by how religious America was. He was impressed that a system of 
government that allowed such freedom was able to maintain order.
  The Founders wisely realized that in a free society, it is imperative 
that individuals practice forbearance, respect, and temperance. These 
are the very values taught by all the world's major religions. The 
Founders devised a Constitution that depended on religion serving as a 
civilizing force in societal life. John Adams, our second President, 
and one of the intellectual forces behind the formation of our Nation, 
said that ``our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious 
people only. It is wholly inadequate to any other.''
  But strangely today, there are those who seem determined to drive all 
trace of religion from the public sphere. They ignore the religious 
traditions on which this great Nation was founded and work to drive 
religion and religious people out of public life.
  Many of my colleagues are aware Judge Roy Moore, a circuit court 
judge in Gadsden, AL, which is located in my district, has been ordered 
to take down a two-plaque replica of the Ten Commandments displayed in 
his courtroom. This case is currently pending before the Alabama 
Supreme Court.
  Many of my colleagues have noted before that this House Chamber 
contains the face of Moses and the words ``in God we trust'' above the 
Speaker's chair. Each day we open with prayer in this great body, as 
was done a few minutes ago, and yet a small courtroom in Gadsden, AL, 
cannot hang a simple display of the Ten Commandments on the wall 
without running the risk of a lawsuit.
  Yet this resolution today is not just about Judge Moore and it is not 
just about the display of the Ten Commandments in Gadsden, AL. It is 
about our national heritage and the role that religion has historically 
played in our national life. Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian 
principles.
  The migration westward across the Atlantic, which began in the early 
17th century, was due primarily to religious conviction. One of the 
most notable examples of this was Roger Williams. Roger Williams was 
the one who first used the phrase ``wall of separation'' in reference 
to religious liberty. He argued that the reason there needed to be a 
separation between the church and State was to protect the church, not 
the State. It is no small irony that the father of our religious 
liberty is about to be removed from the Capitol rotunda.
  The phrase ``wall of separation'' was also used by Thomas Jefferson 
in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In this letter Thomas 
Jefferson argued that the goal of this ``wall of separation'' was to 
protect religious liberty, not to protect the workings of government 
from the influences of religion.
  The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of western 
civilization and the basis of our legal system here in America. To 
exclude a display of the Ten Commandments because it suggests an 
establishment of religion is not consistent with our Nation's heritage, 
let alone common sense itself. This Nation was founded on religious 
traditions that are an integral part of the fabric of American 
cultural, political, and societal life.
  How can we promote integrity in our leaders and improve the moral 
fiber of our people without a basis in some absolute standard?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult resolution. I have had long, 
long feelings that political figures should not use religion for 
political gain, and it bothers me when I see something come to the 
floor, with no committee hearings by either Judiciary, on which I do 
not serve, or on Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I do 
serve.
  If someone wants to have the Ten Commandments in their government 
office and there is no interaction with the public, that is certainly a 
right they can have under the first amendment.
  And Moses, of course, begins the lawgivers of history over our center 
door. He is the first one I point to when constituents are brought into 
the House Chamber by me. And he was a great lawgiver.
  But the Constitution, I think, is very clear. We have an article III 
judiciary that is independent of the legislative and the executive 
branches And the judiciary is independent with good reason. And yet 
here we are intervening, or attempting to intervene, despite all of the 
protestations I will hear, we are intervening in a State court case 
which has not even reached the Federal courts, and it has certainly not 
been reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Now, the Chief Justice is not simply Chief Justice presiding over the 
Supreme Court. The Constitution designates him as Chief Justice of the 
United States. He heads the article III judiciary which is an 
independent branch of government.
  When you have this resolution include courthouses, you make a major 
mistake. You tread on the article III judiciary. If you are in Detroit, 
where there are many Arabic citizens or in Long Beach where there are 
many Cambodian citizens, and you are in a court case, and you walk into 
the courtroom, where you are involved in a case, and you see--under 
this resolution--the Jewish and Christian code on the wall, you might 
ask ``Where is the Islamic--or the Confucian--or the Buddhist--code of 
morality?''
  Mr. Speaker, there are many great religions in this world, Buddhism, 
Christianity, Confucianism, Judaism, and Islam. We have all studied 
them, many of us in this Chamber, and it is wrong to single out two 
religions and carve what they believe on the walls.
  Mr. Speaker, those are wonderful moral precepts. I would hope that 
most of us in this Chamber follow them, and I certainly follow them 
myself. On the other hand, I do not think it is the role of the 
Congress under article I to tell the article III judiciary what your 
courtroom should look like. That courtroom ought to be a place of 
neutrality, where the issues can be fought out without any prejudgments 
having been made. And my feeling about this resolution suddenly coming 
to the floor, popping out of nowhere--as if Peter Pan was floating 
around the Chamber dropping resolutions here and there to be acted 
upon. Such a procedure violates every tradition of this House in terms 
of reference to committee, careful consideration and thinking through 
the implications of an action before we simply use religion to advance 
political careers.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a valued member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I thank the gentleman from my neighboring State of 
Alabama for having the courage and the backbone to introduce this 
resolution in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, today, March 4, is the anniversary of the first day that 
the Constitution of the United States of America went into effect in 
1789, and it is, therefore, I believe, Mr. Speaker, an especially 
appropriate day, though any day is an appropriate day, to stand up for 
freedom of religion and to stand up for an exposition of the rule of 
law in our society, but this is an especially important and significant 
day to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps if Judge Moore had in addition to the Ten 
Commandments a directive on that wall that everybody that comes in must 
bow down and pay homage or fealty to those, that might be different. 
There is nothing mandatory and this Congress certainly knows an awful 
lot about mandatory, the mandated this, that and the other things that 
we have passed over the years, unfunded mandates. What Judge Moore is 
doing is no more mandatory than any one of us standing up here as I 
stand here today and say in God we trust, and in God we do trust. And I 
do not think that the vast majority of Americans think there is 
anything whatsoever wrong in having their elected representatives 
believe and trust in God.
  Thank goodness, I suppose, in light of the arguments on the other 
side that Judge Moore did not have the audacity to include the 
Declaration of Independence on his wall. Maybe he did, and maybe they 
will now object to that, because in the Declaration of Independence 
itself, we find references to God,

[[Page H718]]

and a creator, with a capital C and with a capital G.
  There is nothing mandatory in terms of forcing religion in this 
document than there is in those Ten Commandments hanging on the wall 
which speak so eloquently about the rule of law that would make it 
unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. Indeed, what could be 
unconstitutional is the efforts made to take it down as an abridgment 
of the constitutional right to freedom of speech in this country.
  I say to Judge Moore: Carry on, Judge. Carry on as we will do here in 
this Chamber despite the constant efforts by the other side to 
demoralize, deemphasize this society, and stand here proudly and say in 
God we trust and, Judge Moore, we are glad that in God you trust, and I 
certainly hope that more of the defendants that appear in your 
courtroom also hear that message because they will leave that courtroom 
then better citizens than when they came in, and that is indeed 
something that all of us here should be applauding, not denigrating.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know some have wondered 
why the pace of the House has been so slow this year. Here we are in 
March and we have not done any serious legislating, and I guess people 
who have been worried about that can now take heart. We are indeed 
legislating. We are in a congratulatory legislative mode. This week we 
will be congratulating Guatemala, Nicaragua, Warren Christopher, and 
Moses.

                              {time}  1430

  What we do I think is get 3 out of 4 right, because as the gentleman 
from California who preceded me noted, what we have here is an effort 
to enlist religion into a political battle. No one thinks that this 
resolution will have any influence on the outcome of a court case. 
Indeed, we would hope it would not. There is going to be a judicial 
proceeding.
  How often does Congress take sides by resolution in a pending court 
case? The answer, fortunately, is not very often. It does it apparently 
when we have people in control of the House of Representatives who are 
lacking a legislative agenda, who are unhappy about a vacuum, and 
therefore put this into it, as has been noted by my colleague from 
California, without any hearing, without any chance to amend it.
  For instance, some people might want to vote for this, for all but 
section 2. Some people might, feeling the need, want to talk about what 
a wonderful thing the Ten Commandments is, or are, I am not sure of the 
grammar, but why do we have to vote without a chance to amend on 
section 2? Section 2 is relevant.
  The notion that this is freedom of religion seems to me wholly 
without any intellectual respectability. We are talking here about a 
sitting judge presiding in a courtroom into which people are brought, 
one assumes sometimes against their will. His freedom of religion as a 
citizen is not at issue here. His freedom of religion in his home and 
any private premises he maintains to put whatever he wants up is 
untrammeled. His freedom to speak as he wishes as a citizen is 
untrammeled.
  The question is, Do you bring people into a courtroom who have to be 
there and say to them officially, we feature this religious statement, 
because it is there as a religious statement. Indeed, in defending this 
religious statement by the judge some of the people on the other side 
would trivialize it. He is not putting the Ten Commandments up there as 
an interesting historical factor. He, I believe, himself has 
acknowledged it is up there as an expression of the importance of 
religion. It is not just religion in general, which in itself I believe 
would be unconstitutional, but it refers to specific religions, Judaism 
and Christianity, which support the Ten Commandments. And it is not 
simply the principles of, that would not be objectionable, it is that 
specific religious expression.
  It is simply inappropriate constitutionally in this country to tell 
people that the price of justice in Alabama or anywhere else is to be 
acknowledging the superiority of 2 religions over others. People have 
said, well, you know, the separation of church and state was to protect 
religion, not government. That is right, and what you do not understand 
is how you undermine religion. What you are saying is that the Ten 
Commandments are not in themselves strong enough to command respect. 
Religion cannot propagate them sufficiently. We have to take a sitting 
judge, with all of the powers of a sitting judge and all of the 
authority vested in that judge and allow that judge to be the medium of 
educating people about the Ten Commandments while he is doing his 
judicial duty.
  That is a denigration of religion. That is an assumption that 
religion cannot make it on its own, and it is an inappropriate 
assumption and it violates the constitutional right of people to say I 
do not believe in the Ten Commandments or I believe in 8 commandments 
or 13 commandments. We are clearly here for political purposes seeking 
the capturing of the Ten Commandments, not to inculcate respect for 
them but to deal with a political problem.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Riley].
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Aderholt 
resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the display 
of the Ten Commandments. James Madison once declared,

       We have staked the entire future of the American 
     civilization not upon the power of government, but on the 
     capacity for each of us to govern ourselves, to control 
     ourselves, and to sustain ourselves according to the Ten 
     Commandments of God.

  Thomas Jefferson said,

       I consider ethics as well as religion as supplements to the 
     law and the government of man. Clearly our Constitution and 
     the Bill of Rights are built on the foundations of ethics and 
     morality found in the Ten Commandments.

  Jefferson's concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 
found in the Declaration of Independence also have roots in the 
principles put forth by the Ten Commandments. It is unreasonable for 
anyone to contend that our forefathers did not use the Commandments and 
God's word as the models in which to pattern a new nation, a nation 
based on the protection of individual liberties.
  Yet today, there are those who under the cloak of separation of 
church and state argue that the public display of our Ten Commandments 
in government offices, courthouses, schoolhouses, is a threat to those 
liberties.
  In my own State of Alabama there are efforts to prevent Judge Roy 
Moore from hanging the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The 
Constitution's main purpose is to preserve everyone's inalienable right 
to worship as they see fit. Public servants like Judge Moore do not 
wish to promote any particular religious beliefs by displaying the Ten 
Commandments; instead, they only wish to post a reminder of what our 
society generally agrees is right or what is wrong. The display of the 
Ten Commandments is a poignant reminder.
  As elected officials, we have a responsibility to take a stand. We 
must protect and preserve the principles that form the foundations of 
our society and our Nation. I believe that the Ten Commandments should 
be allowed to hang in our public buildings as a reminder of the 
fundamental principles of our Nation.
  The Commandments remind us that the Constitution was created to 
protect the weak from the strong, not to promote the tyranny of the 
strong. They remind us that we all have a moral obligation to respect 
the rights of others.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Aderholt, to preserve the moral and ethical foundations of 
this great country. Please support the passage of this very important 
resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Virginia for yielding me this time to debate this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the fortune of being born and reared in a house 
that adjoined the churchyard of the Mount Olive Presbyterian Church in 
Charlotte, NC, the church that I happen to be still a member of, and 
grew up with a full understanding of what the Ten Commandments said and 
trying to honor those Commandments.

[[Page H719]]

  Imagine the surprise yesterday when I received a phone call and had a 
message waiting for me when I arrived in Washington saying that 
somebody wanted to talk to me about a resolution that was coming to the 
floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of the Ten 
Commandments. I thought surely this must be a mistake. I thought the 
Ten Commandments were to be supported or not supported in a religious 
context, not in the Halls of the Congress of the United States.
  Imagine my surprise this morning when I pulled out this and found it 
to be the calendar for the day. One item. No business yesterday on the 
floor of the House, no business today with the exception of one item; 
no business tomorrow with the exception of 3 congratulatory bills, 
congratulating people for something; no business the next day in the 
House. I thought maybe this is April Fool's that we are doing on the 
American people this week, but this is not April.
  I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Until I got the call 
yesterday from a constituent saying there is something coming on the 
floor of the House about the Ten Commandments, we had seen no sight of 
this resolution, no debate in the Committee on the Judiciary, no debate 
in any committee.
  I guess I should not be surprised, however, because I got the 
statistics last week that showed that we are only up to 25 bills on the 
floor of the House this session as compared to 175 or thereabouts at 
this time of the session 2 years ago. We ought to be ashamed of 
ourselves for parading this resolution out here as if it was some kind 
of serious business.
  This is not about whether you support freedom of religion or not. If 
you support freedom of religion, then you would really be supporting 
the right of every American citizen to either be religious or not be 
religious, support one religion or the other; you would not be bringing 
a resolution here supporting just one form of religion.
  There are people in our country who have no allegiance to the Ten 
Commandments. And yet, here we are, all of the issues that we have as a 
country pressing upon us, debating whether we ought to support the Ten 
Commandments or not. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves, and we ought 
to vote this resolution down. It should never have been here in the 
first place.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint 
resolution. In 1644 a Scotsman named Samuel Rutherford penned a work 
entitled ``Lex, Rex'' or ``The Law and the Prince.'' This book made 
quite a stir, for it challenged the divine right of kings; that is, it 
challenged the notion that the law was whatever the king said it was.
  Mr. Speaker, Rutherford saw a basic truth: Government not predicated 
upon an absolute is hardly a government at all. This greatly impressed 
the Founders of our Nation.
  Like it or not, the historical fact of the matter is that the 
absolutes upon which most of the law of this country is derived, 
everything from the right to own property to the criminal codes, are 
rooted in the Bible.
  More specifically, much of the law can be traced to that ancient 
moral code we call the Ten Commandments. Thank God that the Founders 
understood the source of law.
  I cringe that a misguided judge could so construe the Constitution as 
to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse 
wall. I urge a yes vote on this resolution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this 
important issue up. I have to tell my colleagues, it is humorous 
watching people doing historical cartwheels, trying to rewrite history 
as radical revisionists have been doing for the past 30 years, trying 
to tell us that the Ten Commandments is some political gimmick. Well, 
if it is, it is a political gimmick that the Father of our Constitution 
also employed.
  James Madison, in drafting the Constitution, which radicals now claim 
to be trying to protect, said,

       We have staked the future of the American civilization not 
     on the power of government, but on the capacity of Americans 
     to abide by the Ten Commandments of God.
  The Father of our Country, George Washington, also talked about how 
this country could not be governed without God and the Ten Commandments 
and the Bible.
  Now, if the revisionists do not like that, that is fine, but please, 
do not insult Americans' intelligence, please do not try to do a verbal 
burning of our American history books. Let us talk about the simple 
facts.

                              {time}  1445

  Maybe that is why the Supreme Court of the United States has two 
copies of the Ten Commandments on the wall, while we have In God We 
Trust and Moses on this wall. Let us get real.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of 
the Ten Commandments that I think will enhance our ability to conduct 
this debate in a civil manner.
  The debate today is over how far the hand of government will stretch 
to remove religious symbols from the public square. Will our courts and 
Federal Government continue the battle to remove all religious symbols 
from the public square? Are the Ten Commandments so offensive that they 
call us not to murder, not to steal, not to commit adultery and to be 
truthful that we must remove them?
  They also call us to remember that we are accountable to someone 
other than ourselves, they call us to live lives of civility and 
respect to others. Is it so offensive to let people see the Ten 
Commandments? Let us support the resolution and the right of Judge 
Moore to hang the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He should have the 
same rights as the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the Ten Commandments:


                          the ten commandments

                         [From Exodus 20:1-17]

       And God spoke all these words:
       ``I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out 
     of the land of slavery.
       ``You shall have no other gods before me.
       ``You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of 
     anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the 
     waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; 
     for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the 
     children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth 
     generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 
     thousand generations of those who love me and keep my 
     commandments.
       ``You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for 
     the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
       ``Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you 
     shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a 
     Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any 
     work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your 
     manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien 
     within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens 
     and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he 
     rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the 
     Sabbath day and made it holy.
       ``Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live 
     long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
       ``You shall not murder.
       ``You shall not commit adultery.
       ``You shall not steal.
       ``You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
       ``You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not 
     covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, 
     his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your 
     neighbor.''

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone thinking that a vote for this resolution 
represents a show of their own support for the virtues of the Ten 
Commandments should take pause. This actually demeans Christianity 
rather than upholds it.
  Benjamin Franklin once wrote, ``When religion is good, I conceive 
that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and 
God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are 
obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I 
apprehend, of its being a bad one.''
  Mr. Speaker, Christians do not need the courts to endorse or 
legitimize our religion, and asking for support from a court for 
endorsement is self-defeating.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was 
passed,

[[Page H720]]

Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison the following: ``It is 
comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so 
many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by 
kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced 
the first legislature who has had the courage to declare that the 
reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions.''
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes to us without warning, without 
hearings, without deliberation. It has come without an explanation of 
why it is so urgent that, if it is constitutional, the process will 
work its will. If it is not constitutional, it does not matter what we 
think. In either case, I do not think we should position ourselves with 
a judge for whom a court has ruled he is breaking the law and a judge 
who has proclaimed that we will ignore the very law he is supposed to 
uphold.
  Mr. Speaker, we have other things that we should be doing, juvenile 
justice, education, health care, employment, the budget. We should be 
attending to those rather than this resolution that comes, as I said, 
without warning, without hearings, and without deliberation.
  Mr. Speaker, we should, therefore, defeat this resolution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have here a dollar bill that says ``In 
God we trust.'' Behind the Speaker it says ``In God we trust.'' This 
finite example, these examples provide tangible proof of the 
traditional cooperation of church and state.
  I say to the folks on this side, the Ten Commandments hang currently 
on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court in a frieze. In fact the very 
chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated 
with a notable and permanent, not seasonal, symbol of religion, Moses 
with the Ten Commandments.
  In order to preserve the religious principles on which our Nation was 
founded, let us demonstrate today to the Nation our belief that the Ten 
Commandments are a cornerstone of a fair and just society.
  Mr. Speaker, John Knox, the Scottish religious reformer, once wrote: 
``a man with God is always in the majority.'' We are a Judeo-Christian 
society. It is time we rose in support of it. Judge Roy Moore's 
courtroom illustrates his commitment to the tenets of the Ten 
Commandments. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's founding 
principles and individual liberty by passing this resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to rise 
following a statement that calls upon Judeo-Christian tenets and our 
belief in the first amendment that clearly articulates our belief in 
the right to freedom of religion and certainly freedom of speech.
  Even as I rushed to the floor of the House because I thought this 
deliberation was so key, I was admonished that we begin our sessions 
with prayer. And, yes, we do. And so it is important that we provide 
comfort to those who want to participate in religious activities and we 
do. I believe in the Ten Commandments. But we gave an option to the 
honorable judge in Alabama and that was that he could have the Ten 
Commandments along with other artifacts that would indicate the 
broadness and depth of his responsibility as a jurist.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is wrong. We have not had a 
hearing. It begs the question of freedom of religion. We have freedom 
of religion, but the negative part of this particular resolution is it 
has a matter on the floor of the House that has no place here. We have 
the right to have freedom of religion across this Nation, but those who 
would come into that courtroom also have the right to be acknowledged 
and recognized in their difference in beliefs, their difference in 
interpretation of the Ten Commandments, their belief or nonbelief in 
the Ten Commandments. That is the freedom that we seek here by opposing 
this resolution, the freedom to be able to believe as one would want to 
believe, the freedom to be able to acknowledge that we believe. I 
believe in the Ten Commandments, but that in the place of government, 
we here in the United States Congress should not be on one side versus 
another. We should be promoting the right to freedom of religion and 
freedom of expression of those who might oppose the display of the Ten 
Commandments as it is presently exposed.
  I would simply say that our right here is to oppose the resolution, 
to support the first amendment and to support freedom of religion.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Throughout this debate, I have been struck by the fact that inscribed 
over the Speaker are the words ``In God we trust.'' All of the 
arguments that are being made that the Ten Commandments should not be 
displayed in a courtroom are equally applicable to the display of the 
motto ``In God we trust'' here in this Chamber.
  Does in God we trust here mean that we are denying people religious 
freedom? Does it mean that the people who come into the Chamber to 
watch our proceedings are somehow discriminated against if they do not 
believe in God? Does it mean that we are threatening the Constitution? 
Does it mean we are undermining the Constitution or undermining 
religious freedom? No. It does not.
  And I would like to ask any of the Members who are opposed to this 
resolution to state whether they wish to have these words effaced from 
the wall here. If they do, then maybe they would be consistent.
  But if they are not willing to say that, then I think they should not 
oppose this resolution because displaying the Ten Commandments in a 
courtroom does nothing more to establish a particular religion or 
religion in general in this country than the display of these words on 
the walls of this Chamber.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to make a very brief comment in closing.
  We have to look at the context in this particular case, in this 
particular courtroom. The context, as in the order against the judge, 
indicated that if he had a display similar to the one in the Supreme 
Court that had the Ten Commandments in the context of historical 
perspective where it is not specifically singled out, not endorsed, 
then it would be okay. The court in this case was given that option and 
denied it because he said that he wants to make a religious statement.
  The context is such that one would doubt whether or not they would 
have a fair trial if they do not believe in that particular religion.
  I do not think anyone thinks that their legislation may be in 
jeopardy based on their religious beliefs based on the statement right 
above your head, Mr. Speaker. They are free to state their beliefs and 
their position on legislation or the outcome of their legislation is 
not jeopardized by virtue of those beliefs.
  I think it is reasonable to assume if you did not believe what the 
judge did, after he has stated a prayer, as he has, and the one 
religion singled out for display, I think you could reasonably assume 
that the outcome of your case may be jeopardized if you do not enjoy 
that same religion. It is the context in which these Ten Commandments 
are presented that creates the problem.
  The court has been ruled out of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we 
should vote against this resolution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Aderholt] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to say that 
this resolution does not State that the Ten Commandments must be 
displayed in government buildings. It does not force anyone to believe 
in God, nor does it force anyone to obey the Ten Commandments. It 
merely reaffirms the importance of a vital religious symbol in American 
societal life.
  As a nation we could do worse than to affirm these principles, that 
these principles have a place in our society and in our legal system.
  Families in Oklahoma would still be whole if the perpetrators of the 
bombing had followed the command ``thou

[[Page H721]]

shalt not kill.'' The streets of Los Angeles would have been peaceful 
last Friday if two men had followed the command ``thou shalt not 
steal.''
  Ronald Reagan said it best when he stated that billions of laws have 
been enacted throughout history and none of them have improved on the 
Ten Commandments one bit.
  Although this measure is a sense of Congress and it is not legally 
binding, I strongly believe that this resolution is an important 
symbolic gesture.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 31.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 31).
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 31, the resolution supporting public display of the Ten 
Commandments.
  Mr. Chairman, some complain that displaying the Ten Commandments 
constitutes the establishment of religion.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the Ten Commandments actually constitute the 
establishment of law.
  The Ten Commandments are one of the earliest examples of written law 
that society must have to survive.
  Acknowledging that the rights of people and the responsibility to 
establish laws protecting those rights come not from government but 
from the Creator only acknowledges the truth.
  Acknowledging that our system of law is deeply rooted in the Judeo-
Christian tradition only acknowledges the truth.
  The truth, Mr. Chairman, is that the Ten Commandments establish the 
very principles of a fair and just society.
  Alabama Governor Fob James should be commended for taking whatever 
steps are necessary to resist the judicial tyranny which would force 
the removal of the Ten Commandments from Judge Roy Moore's courtroom.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to pass this resolution. If we as a 
nation are to continue to prosper, it will be as a result of the 
providence and blessing of God and the ideals set out in each of the 
Commandments.

                          ____________________