[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.
____________________