[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1008-H1014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the time this evening to 
talk about one of the most significant problems that has plagued 
America because of a multitude of Supreme Court decisions, which the 
American people have never accepted. You see, there is a problem with 
lack of respect for our Constitution and for the history and the 
heritage which brought our Constitution to us.
  In fact, what brought so many people to America originally was their 
desire for religious freedom. We look at the stories of the Pilgrims 
and Puritans, and we recognize that they were motivated by a desire to 
be in a land where they could be free to worship as they pleased to 
worship. And that has been so much of the bedrock of American values, 
but it has been under attack by the United States Supreme Court.
  In 1962, the Supreme Court said it did not matter if it was 
voluntary; students could not come together and pray at school the way 
that they had since the founding of the republic. In 1998, the U.S. 
Supreme Court said the Ten Commandments could not be on the wall of the 
public school because, and this is what the U.S. Supreme Court said, 
the students might read and obey the Ten Commandments. So, thanks to 
the court, of course, our students do not read the Ten Commandments and 
certainly there is a problem in getting people to obey them.
  In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court said even a moment of silence was 
wrong. A law to permit a moment of silence, they declared, was 
unconstitutional because it said that this was okay for students to use 
that time to pray silently.
  In 1992, the Supreme Court said that a rabbi broke the law by 
offering prayer at a public school graduation. And in 1995, the same 
Supreme Court, which has ruled that a Nazi swastika is protected on 
public policy, ruled that a cross could not be included in a group of 
symbols on a city seal to show the heritage of that community.
  In fact, I know that case very well, Mr. Speaker, because it happened 
in my congressional district in Edmond, Oklahoma. The city seal had 
five emblems on it: A pair of hands clasped in friendship; an oil 
derrick, symbolizing the importance of oil to Oklahoma's economy; a 
covered wagon, indicating the heritage of the Oklahoma land run; a 
tower that is at the university, the University of Central Oklahoma, in 
Edmond; and a cross depicting a portion of the religious heritage of 
the community. And I will bring it on another case, Mr. Speaker, that 
city seal has a blank spot because the other courts ruled and the 
Supreme Court said, oh, yes, you cannot have a cross displayed on 
public property.
  Now, that is the same Supreme Court that had said that you could not 
have a nativity scene in Pennsylvania in Allegheny County. They said a 
nativity scene, or for that matter a menorah, were unconstitutional 
because they were not sufficiently balanced by emblems like Santa Claus 
and Frosty the Snowman and the reindeer. Because of that, they said it 
was unconstitutional to have the Christmas displays that so many places 
have had.
  I know there are many places in this country where people still do 
things like have a prayer at a high school football game or as part of 
the school assembly or maybe in a classroom. But often, Mr. Speaker, 
that is because the ACLU and their friends have not got around to suing 
that particular community yet. And, indeed, I see in this Chamber of 
the House of Representatives right above the Speaker's chair, it reads, 
``In God we trust.'' And if the Speaker looks directly across the 
Chamber from his chair on the back wall here, he sees the visage of 
Moses, the great lawgiver. And yet, if we had those displayed in public 
schools, they would likely be held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be 
unconstitutional.
  These decisions started in 1962. There is a whole series of them. I 
have not even mentioned all of them. But, Mr. Speaker, the time has 
come to end the judicial misinterpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

                              {time}  2145

  The first amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' 
But the Supreme Court has misconstrued that to say, ``Oh, well, if you 
have a prayer at public school, that is the same thing as establishing 
an official church.'' Of course it is not.
  Common sense tells us it is not, but it is used by people who are 
intolerant of religion. That is why over 150 Members of this body, of 
the House of Representatives, have so far joined together with me in 
sponsoring the religious freedom amendment. It is a proposed amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution to tell the Supreme Court it is time that we 
straighten out these things.
  It has been approved by the House's Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
Just last week it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee. We 
will be voting in the House of Representatives on the religious freedom 
amendment in not too many weeks from now, a proposed amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution to correct the mistaken rulings of the Supreme Court 
against voluntary school prayer, and in so many other ways where they 
have misconstrued the first amendment.
  Now, the text, Mr. Speaker, of the religious freedom amendment is 
pretty straightforward. I would like to share it with Members. It 
reads, ``To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to 
the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State 
shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray 
and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on 
public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The 
government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other 
religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against 
religion or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.''
  It is pretty simple. It is pretty straightforward. It expresses that 
we have a right to acknowledge God in America according to the dictates 
of our own conscience, and neither the

[[Page H1009]]

United States nor any State is to establish any official religion. 
Government is not going to tell us how to believe or what faith we must 
profess or indeed if we must profess any faith, but the people have a 
right to pray, even when they are on public property, and that is an 
individual right and a collective right. We can do it as individuals. 
We can do it as a group. Government can accommodate that and make it 
possible for it to occur. And also if it is a recognition of religious 
belief, heritage or tradition, that is okay.
  I have kids in public school or that have graduated from public 
school, and I cannot tell you how I, as so many other parents have 
done, have gone to school at different times, you think you are going 
to a Christmas program, but you find that the songs that are sung are 
Frosty the Snowman, Here Comes Santa Claus, Walking in a Winter 
Wonderland, but what happened to O Come All Ye Faithful? What happened 
to Silent Night? People are afraid to sing them because they think they 
may get sued by the ACLU. And indeed the policies have gotten so 
restrictive, whether it is Christmas or a song about Hanukkah or a hymn 
of Thanksgiving, whatever it may be. It happens not just at school 
assemblies, it happens at school graduations.
  After a case in Utah where a Federal court told them not to sing a 
simple song about friends because the court thought it had too many 
religious connotations, the Washington Post wrote in an editorial, it 
is now an open question, is it okay anymore in public school to sing 
America the Beautiful, because the chorus says, ``God shed His grace on 
thee.''
  Is it not absurd in the United States of America, a land with such a 
beautiful, rich history and heritage of religious freedom, when we 
wonder if somebody is going to get sued for singing America the 
Beautiful?
  The religious freedom amendment says religious heritage, traditions, 
belief, yes, the people can express those on public property, and that 
includes schools. It says also, because we want to make sure people 
know that they are protected, they are not compelled, government is not 
going to force anybody to join in prayer.
  We start sessions of Congress with two things, the Pledge of 
Allegiance and a prayer. That used to be common in public schools as 
well. There are some people in this country who do not want to say the 
Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that 50 years 
ago. They said no child can be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. 
I agree with that. That is common sense. You do not force them to. But 
they did not give somebody the right to censor and halt the children 
who did want to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
  That is the standard we should be applying to prayer in public 
schools. You are not forced to join in; if you do not want to, you do 
not have to, but that does not mean that if you are so intolerant of 
other people's beliefs, you can force them to stop, because there are 
millions of people in this country, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans, 
who think they should be starting a day at school with a prayer, a 
simple expression of hope and faith and desire for guidance at the 
start of the day. But we do not want to force anybody.
  And so it is explicit. Government shall not require any person to 
join in prayer or any other religious activity. And the government does 
not prescribe school prayers; it does not say, you must pray, and if 
you choose to pray, it does not say what your prayer shall be. Instead, 
follow the basic rule. Rotate, take turns, give different students 
their opportunities. Let them enjoy the understanding that comes from 
praying together and hearing and sharing in the prayers of others.
  And we have a protection in the religious freedom amendment. You are 
not going to discriminate against religion and you are not going to 
deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
  I recall in Oklahoma City, Mr. Speaker, after the bombing and when 
there was Federal assistance to rebuild the area of downtown Oklahoma 
City damaged by the blast of the Murrah Building, there were hundreds 
of other structures that also suffered damage in that. Several of them 
within a block or two of the blast were churches. The Department of 
Housing and Urban Development had to get their arms twisted frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, to accept the idea that a church, just like any other 
business or enterprise or building nearby, could receive the rebuilding 
assistance that came from the Federal Government to the properties 
damaged by the Murrah Building blast. I think that is proper.
  We do not say that we are going to help this building over here 
because it is a copy business or a printing business or a restaurant 
but, oh, we will help everybody except those that are institutions of 
faith. We are not going to pay them for their religion or for their 
religious ceremonies, but we are going to treat them equally if there 
is some sort of Federal assistance program. Because churches are 
involved in so many things; they are involved in welfare assistance, 
they are involved in housing assistance, they are involved in programs 
against drinking and drugs and rehabilitation. Why should we say that 
when we have a Federal grant that is available to help somebody get on 
the right track again, if they have a spiritual component as part of 
their program, they are going to be disqualified?

  The religious freedom amendment is not about supporting churches. It 
does not enable that to happen for religious activity. But when they 
have a program that meshes with what we are trying to accomplish to 
help people get on the right track and to get a hand up and a helping 
hand in their lives, you do not disqualify someone.
  Just like, for example, take Federal education assistance, Pell 
grants, Federal college loans, GI bill benefits, we do not tell 
somebody, look, if you go to the University of Oklahoma or the 
University of Virginia or the University of Michigan, you can have the 
Federal assistance in education. Oh, but if you are going to go to 
Notre Dame or some other Catholic institution, or if you go to Baylor, 
which is where I went to college, since it is a Baptist institution, 
you cannot do that. Or Brigham Young or Southern Methodist, we do not 
say that we are going to disqualify you because you are going to a 
school that has a religious affiliation. No, we understand that the 
purpose is education.
  So the religious freedom amendment also seeks to cut down on the 
attacks that people are making, trying to stop normal, everyday 
assistance programs just because they want to discriminate against 
people's religion. It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, that we correct the 
decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has heaped upon us.
  I think it is important that we look at a particular term that is 
often used by people in this discussion. I hear people say, well, what 
does this mean about separation of church and State? I understand the 
questions. But I also worry when people pay more attention to a catch 
phrase than to what are the words of the U.S. Constitution. Because 
that phrase, ``separation of church and State,'' although it has some 
use, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America. 
No matter how many people try to claim that it is, all you had to do is 
pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it.
  What does it say about religion? ``Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.'' That phrase, ``separation of church and State,'' is 
not found in the Constitution.
  So the religious freedom amendment does not violate the concept of 
separation of church and State in the proper sense of that term, but 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, people who are intolerant of other people's 
religions have distorted the proper meaning of that phrase. In the 
process, they have persuaded our courts to distort the first amendment.
  Under their approach, because the government keeps expanding, 
everywhere, whether you are talking about schools or roads or if you 
are talking about drug counseling programs, if you are talking about 
trade, if you are talking about the price of apples and eggs and 
butter, the government is involved. When you have a constantly growing 
government, if you put in place a mistaken notion of separation of 
church and State and make an improper use of that term, then as 
government gets bigger, you are saying that religion has to leave the 
room.
  When government comes in the door, religion must exit. So as 
government keeps growing, religion and its place in our lives has to 
shrink. That is not

[[Page H1010]]

what the Founding Fathers intended. That is not what that phrase was 
intended to mean.
  I want to share with Members what the phrase properly means. This is 
not according to Ernest Istook; this is according to the Chief Justice 
of the United States Supreme Court, William Rehnquist. Justice 
Rehnquist is not one of those who has been trying to push religion and 
religious expression out of the public square. But Justice Rehnquist 
has dissented from what the court has done in so many ways.
  Justice Rehnquist wrote an official dissent, and this was in the case 
of Wallace v. Jaffree in 1985. He wrote that the wrongful focus on the 
term separation of church and State has caused, and here are his words 
on what it has caused, ``a mischievous diversion of judges from the 
actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The wall of 
separation between church and State is a metaphor based on bad history, 
a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be 
frankly and explicitly abandoned.'' Those are the words of the Chief 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Because people, instead of talking about the Constitution and our 
rights under the Constitution, have sought to persuade people that 
instead you just talk about this phrase, ``separation of church and 
State.''
  The religious freedom amendment does not abandon the notion of 
separation of church and State. It just corrects it to the proper 
meaning; the original and correct meaning of it is what we focus upon. 
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the actual intent of the first 
amendment, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This is what 
Justice Rehnquist says was the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.
  And I quote his words again, ``The evil to be aimed at, so far as its 
drafters were concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a 
national church and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over 
another, but it was definitely not concerned about whether the 
government might aid all religions evenhandedly.''
  So the religious freedom amendment follows the correct interpretation 
and meaning. We do not establish any sort of official religion. We are 
not going to have a national church in the USA. But that does not mean 
that we cannot have evenhanded treatment of different religions, of all 
religions rather than suppressing them, rather than having this 
current, horrible standard that says you go into a classroom and if a 
child wants to pray, you silence them.

                              {time}  2200

  We silence them. We censor them, we shut them up. That is wrong. That 
is not tolerance, that is not diversity, that is censorship. But that 
is what the U.S. Supreme Court has been telling us for 36 years, and it 
is long overdue that we correct what they have done to twist and 
distort the First Amendment.
  Now, it is really embarrassing, Mr. Speaker, that Congress has taken 
so long to act on this crucial issue which goes to the heart of the 
matter; it goes to the essence of our liberties as Americans. We have 
not had a vote on a school prayer constitutional amendment in this 
House of Representatives since 1971, and that is the only time we ever 
had it. The Supreme Court made its decision in that area in 1962. Now, 
after 36 years, we only had one vote on the floor of this House, and 
that was 27 years ago. They have not had a vote in the Senate since 
1984.
  And yet, year after year, month after month, we have public opinion 
polls, I have a collection of 36 years of public opinion polls in the 
U.S.A., and 75 percent plus, 75 percent and up of the American people 
say they want a constitutional amendment to address this, to make it 
possible to have voluntary prayer in public school again. And the House 
has been unresponsive. That is why I am so pleased that 150 and more 
Members of this House have come together in sponsoring the religious 
freedom amendment to correct this. It is so long overdue.
  As we look at this, let us compare the difference between what we do 
on a Federal level and the States. If we look at the preamble of the 
religious freedom amendment, to secure the people's right to 
acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, is that not 
what we want? Is that not the freedom we want? We can acknowledge God 
according to what our conscience tells us ought to be the manner of 
doing so.
  I hear some critics say, oh, my goodness, we cannot refer to God in 
the Constitution of the United States of America. What do we think the 
Founding Fathers did and the Declaration of Independence when they 
talked about a due regard for nature's God, when they said in the 
Declaration of Independence that we hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights 
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these 
rights, governments are instituted among men. Now, is that not 
something? The Founding Fathers said our rights do not come from 
government, they come from God, from our Creator, and the purpose of 
government, the whole reason for setting up government is to secure the 
rights given to us by God.
  Now, to some people today perhaps that appears a strange notion, and 
so when we say let us put in the Constitution that people have a right 
to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, they seem 
to think it is something strange. But yet, Mr. Speaker, I have looked 
through the constitutions of all 50 States. I ask my colleagues if they 
know that every one of our 50 States in their State constitutions refer 
to God. They do.
  We can look at any State, pick a State. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham), from that Golden State, California's constitution 
includes the words that they are grateful to Almighty God for our 
freedom. Pick another State. Let us take another western State. 
Arizona, in its Constitution it says, grateful to Almighty God for our 
liberties. Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. Kansas, 
grateful to Almighty God for our civic and religious privileges.
  Maine, oh, listen to this in Maine: Acknowledging with grateful 
hearts the goodness of the sovereign ruler of the universe in affording 
us an opportunity so favorable to the design, and imploring God's aid 
and direction in its accomplishments. That is in a State Constitution 
in Maine. Connecticut says that it acknowledges with gratitude the good 
providence of God. Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free 
exercise of the right to choose our own government. Nebraska, grateful 
to Almighty God for our freedom. Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for 
the blessings of freedom. New York, grateful to Almighty God for our 
freedom.
  My home State of Oklahoma, invoking the guidance of Almighty God. 
Rhode Island in its State Constitution says, grateful to Almighty God 
for the civil and religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us 
to enjoy and looking to him for a blessing upon our endeavors. South 
Carolina in their State Constitution says that they are grateful to God 
for our liberties. Vermont says that part of the reason for their 
Constitution is to worship Almighty God.
  We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, through the different States, 
through what the people of the States have thought was so important 
that they needed to write it into their constitutions, and they did not 
mince words. They said, we as a people believe in Almighty God, and we 
want to protect people's rights to worship God Almighty.
  In this age when so many people are trying to suppress religious 
expression in everyday life, is it not overdue that we make it clear in 
the national Constitution of the United States of America that people 
should be secure in their right to acknowledge God according to the 
dictates of conscience? And that is a phrase that appears also in a 
number of State constitutions: according to the dictates of conscience.
  So the people that did so much to establish this Nation and the 
States and to establish and then to preserve our freedom and our 
liberty, they recognized that it is because of God Almighty that we 
have been able to do these things. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is sad that so 
many people want to wipe it out. They say, well, look, if we want to 
express something about religion, do it in the privacy of your own 
home, do it only at church.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if our constitutional rights only exist when we are 
in

[[Page H1011]]

private and we cannot proclaim them in public, are they really a right 
anymore? If we were told we have a right of free speech, but not in 
public, we would have the media so up in arms about it saying, wait a 
minute, free speech is something one takes with them wherever they go, 
and in fact it is supposed to be more protected on public property than 
on private property. Is that happening?
  A sad case recently, this is a Federal court, a Federal court in New 
Jersey, there was a first grade student in Medford, New Jersey, and he 
wanted the right to read a story to his classmates and he brought a 
book to school the next day to read a story to his classmates. The book 
was The Beginner's Bible. The story was about Jacob and Esau, their 
reunion together, two brothers coming back together. In fact, I have 
read the text of that story. It does not even mention God, but because 
it is from a beginner's Bible, the teacher said, ``You cannot read it 
in school,'' and the U.S. District Court agreed and said that is right, 
you cannot read it. That is the first grader.
  In Alabama right now, in a court ruling issued by a Federal judge in 
Alabama, over 70 students have been expelled because the judge has said 
it does not matter what sort of school activity it is, classroom, 
school assembly, football game, pep rally, you name it, school 
officials cannot permit a prayer to occur. And students that do not go 
along with that have been expelled. Now, what kind of religious 
tolerance is that?

  I recall the words of another Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart. 
He dissented, Mr. Speaker. He dissented when the Supreme Court said 
that students should not be allowed to join together in prayer at 
school as part of a normal activity, and he wrote that he did not see 
that there was a danger in letting students that wanted to say a prayer 
to say one. In fact, he said if we really believe in diversity, 
students are only going to learn about diversity if they are exposed to 
it at school where they know it is normal, where they realize different 
people pray different ways, different people have some differences 
among their faiths, but yet they are more united than they are separate 
on those things.
  In fact, Justice Stewart went farther, because I hear some people 
talk about what they call a captive audience at school, they say, oh, 
you cannot have prayers at school because the children are captive 
audiences there. The people that first came up with that concept did 
not think about all of the students, they only cared about maybe a 
child who did not want to hear someone else's prayer.
  But how about the vast majority of students that say yes, that is 
something good, that is something positive, what about their rights? 
Because Justice Potter Stewart wrote, in a system of compulsory 
attendance at public school, to deny children the right to have a 
prayer, which is an everyday occurrence in so many other places in 
life--this Congress, legislatures, city council meetings, city club 
meetings, you name it--to deny them the right, Justice Stewart wrote, 
to have a prayer while they are required to be at school is to place 
religion at an artificial and State-created disadvantage. It is not 
being neutral, it is being negative toward religion, and that is not 
what the Founding Fathers intended.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
would just like to thank my good friend from Oklahoma for organizing 
this special order and for all of his hard work in behalf of this very 
important and vital legislation. I respect very, very deeply our 
Constitution and our First Amendment, but I share the gentleman's 
concern with the interpretations that have been given of the First 
Amendment over the last 30 years by our Supreme Court.
  Ironically, it seems that the Founding Fathers who certainly had the 
specter of a national religion fresh on their minds probably never, 
ever envisioned a time in history like we experience today when 
religious expression and exercise of any kind in a public place is 
shunned so adamantly by our government. They were running from a 
government that was too involved in religion, and we now have a 
government that discriminates against religion.
  So I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his 
efforts and for lifting up this issue for the American people and for 
the Members of this body to carefully deliberate on so that we can 
really consider where we want to go in the future to right what has 
been 30 years of the wrong direction.
  I can remember very vividly when I was a child growing up in Mobile, 
Alabama, and I started to school and every morning it was the Lord's 
Prayer, the 23rd Psalm, the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and My 
Country 'Tis of Thee. That was regular, it was consistent, and even 
though we recited it almost by rote, the words of all of those began to 
have meaning for us. And I believe that somehow those words, through 
the 12 years of grade school and high school that I attended, made a 
difference in shaping the values that I have. I am afraid that several 
generations of America's young people have grown up despiritualized 
because of this wall of separation that has been placed between our 
religious values and our life.
  I learned somewhere that religion is what means the most to a person. 
I believe as Americans we are very, very reverent, and I think that 
everyone should have the right to express him or herself in any way 
that he or she should, within the appropriate and accepted means.
  This religious freedom amendment that is being offered is very 
simple. It says simply that to secure the people's right to acknowledge 
God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States 
nor any State shall establish any official religion. Who would have any 
qualms about that? It goes on to say that the people's right to pray 
and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on 
public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Now, who 
should have problems with that?

                              {time}  2215

  It says, ``Neither the United States nor any State shall require any 
person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school 
prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a 
benefit on account of religion.''
  All of this would appear to be perfectly legitimate and perfectly 
consistent with what the Founding Fathers had when they drafted the 
First Amendment to our Constitution. It is certainly consistent with 
our history, our traditions for most of the 200 plus years of our 
country's history, save the last 30 years where the Supreme Court has 
turned us in another direction.
  I believe that it is appropriate. I believe that it is certainly 
incumbent upon us to lift this issue and to raise it so that, once 
again, Americans will have as much protection to express their 
religious beliefs and heritage, even in a public place as they do to 
express, to describe, or to observe nude or pornographic material.
  I think that to offer more protection for pornography than for the 
sacred, religious beliefs and traditions of the various people in this 
country is really awful. It is something that is inconsistent with our 
history and our heritage.
  I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his efforts. 
And I join the gentleman in his efforts to see if we can right that 
wrong.
  Now, there are those who would suggest that, if we should do this, 
that we will somehow be infringing upon the rights of, perhaps, a 
minority; that there may be a Jewish student in school or a Muslim 
student in school who might feel ostracized because he or she may be 
the only child or one of just a few children in the class who may be 
belonging to a particular religious belief or faith.
  Well, that may be true that they may be a minority, but we have 
learned in America that even minorities have rights. Under this 
religious freedom amendment, even that child who belongs to a minority 
would have just as much right to pray or to express his or her 
religious traditions as the majority, the majority faith that would be 
represented in that particular environment.
  They say, well, how are we going to manage to make sure that no child 
gets ostracized or no one is treated unfairly? I suggest to the 
gentleman that

[[Page H1012]]

it should be handled in the very same way that teachers and principals 
and school administrators and school boards handle the order and 
discipline of our schools today.
  What has to happen is that school boards must be accountable. They 
must make sure that whatever policies are applied are applied 
evenhandedly. And if those policies are applied evenhandedly, even the 
minority students would have the right to express their religious 
beliefs with the same dignity and the same respect as any other 
students in the class. I believe that it is fair. It is basic. I think 
it is an idea whose time has returned.
  I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma. I certainly support his 
efforts. Maybe we may disagree on some of the nuances and some of the 
specific wording in the amendment, but I think the thought, the 
principles, and the ideas are the same.
  I want to join the gentleman and support what he is doing. Maybe at 
some point we can get together and fine tune the language in a way that 
it would eliminate any criticism.
  For example, I believe the gentleman mentioned the word, ``God''. 
There are some religions that God can be a generic term or God can be 
an anthropomorphic deity. I do not think it is appropriate for 
government to decide.
  So for that reason, if it were my preference, I would remove the 
word, ``God,'' from the amendment itself, because it appears no where 
else in the Constitution anyway. But I do not think that that is a 
severe impediment.
  I believe that the essence of the amendment is for every person to 
have the right to express his or her religious beliefs and opinions 
without being discriminated against and in an evenhanded way.
  I do not think that government should shun religion just as I do not 
think government should foster religion. I believe that this amendment, 
if implemented and if it is applied fairly, and school boards are 
accountable and hold their employees accountable in the implementation 
of it, I think it can work well. I think that it will help us to get 
back to the day where we can restore spirituality and values and 
principles and character and dignity in our young people, and we can 
look forward to a brighter future.
  I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's comments. In 
fact, I would like to exchange a couple of thoughts with the gentleman.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I can, with the gentleman 
from Georgia, because I was struck by something he said about some 
people, the way they treat it, in essence, equate religion or religious 
expression with pornography.
  Now, let me explain what I mean by that, because pornography is a 
special category where free speech does not apply. Free speech is not 
absolute. We cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. That is kind of 
the classic. We cannot advocate for people to rush out and take up arms 
and violently overthrow the government or otherwise incite people to 
riot or rebel. I do not know if that is truly what we are trying to do. 
Of course, then, there is limitations on things that are pornographic.
  Now, the courts in doing this, I can think of an example that 
involves the Internal Revenue Service. One of their big district 
offices in California put out a memorandum to its employees. They said, 
you cannot have a religious item in your personal work space or on your 
desk. We are talking about things that could be a picture of Christ. It 
could be a Star of David. It could be a nativity scene. It could be 
lots of different things.
  I wrote the IRS, and I said, why are you doing this? They wrote back, 
and they said in their letter, items which are considered intrusive 
such as, and they gave two examples, and these are the only examples 
they gave, items which are considered intrusive such as religious items 
or sexually suggestive cartoons or calendars are prohibited.
  Look how they juxtaposed things. Look how they categorized a Bible or 
a menorah or a cross or whatever as though it were pornographic. I was 
struck by that when the gentleman from Georgia made the comment that he 
did. I wanted to share that with the gentleman and get your reaction to 
that.
  Mr. BISHOP. I would be appalled to have that kind of comparison 
contrast made to mention religious items. Religion is what means most 
to people. It is revered. It is something that is sacred, whatever that 
expression may be. If it is religious, it is deeply held and deeply 
felt.
  For those of us who feel that a person's right to express his or her 
religious traditions, whether it is the wearing of religious items, a 
crucifix, a menorah, or whatever the sacred item might be, and to have 
that item in his or her possession, and to have that equated with 
pornography, I think, is abominable.

  I think it is certainly inconsistent with the noble high ideals of 
our Founding Fathers when they founded this country and when they wrote 
what I believe to be one of the greatest documents ever written in 
history, and that is our Constitution, next to the Bible, of course.
  I feel very strongly that this is wrong, that the interpretation, the 
pendulum, has swung too far in that direction, and we need to right a 
wrong. I believe that the way to do that is through the enactment of a 
Constitutional amendment to set it straight once and for all.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I agree with the gentleman. I think through the different 
symbols. Because it is not just the Internal Revenue Service. They are 
acting in response to these horrible court decisions.
  In San Francisco, in a city park there, for 65 years, there was a 
large cross. It was on public property there. It had been there for 65 
years. It had been praised by people.
  President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he was President, made a 
national address where he singled it out. A U.S. Supreme Court ruled 
last year it was unconstitutional. Now, I do not know if it was 
unconstitutional to them 65 years ago or if it first became 
unconstitutional to them in 1997 or when.
  There have since become cases in San Diego, cases in Oregon, cases in 
Hawaii. I mentioned the one in Edmond, Oklahoma. For the U.S. Supreme 
Court to single out emblems of a particular faith and, yet, that same 
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an emblem like a Nazi swastika is 
protected.
  I am thinking of a case in Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish community with 
a lot of members of the Jewish faith who were survivors of the Nazi 
Holocaust, and American Nazis went to parade in Skokie, Illinois, 
through the streets emblazoning their Nazi swastika all over the place. 
The court said, oh, that is protected. A symbol of hate is protected, 
but a symbol of love, of hope, of faith, it is not. What kind of 
standard is the Supreme Court using?
  Mr. BISHOP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes.
  Mr. BISHOP. I think that is a very, very profound question, because I 
think what the Supreme Court was trying to say was that we have to 
learn to be tolerant of the views of others, even though they may be 
different from ours. I think that is a very, very valid statement, a 
very, very valid principle.
  However, do we want to draw the line and not be tolerant of the views 
of others if those views happen to be based in religious tradition, 
religious practices, religious beliefs? Certainly, that could not be 
the intent of our Founding Fathers.
  Certainly, we must want to teach tolerance so that, if people are of 
different religions, different backgrounds, have different points of 
view, that they each have the right to express those points of view in 
an atmosphere of tolerance, particularly government tolerance.
  I think that that is essentially what this amendment is trying to do. 
Let us be as tolerant of the expressions of religious belief, 
regardless of what the religion might be.
  Let us be as tolerant of that as we would be of a swastika or of 
burning a flag in public, which is certainly abominable to those of us 
who are patriotic Americans who revere our flag, but to allow tolerance 
for those who, through their anger and misguided or misdirection, would 
destroy our flag or would want to wave a symbol of hate like a 
swastika, to give them the protection and the tolerance, but not to 
give that to a young girl who merely wants to take her Bible with her 
on her school bus on her way to school, to ban that

[[Page H1013]]

and not give her the protection and the tolerance by her government 
merely to carry a sacred book on the school bus with her, that could 
not be the intent of our Founding Fathers, and certainly was not the 
practice of the custom for most of our country's history.
  Can you imagine justifying and protecting the use and the waving of a 
swastika, a symbol of hate, while at the same time, banning a young 
girl from playing a videotape of herself in a show-and-tell day at 
school simply because she is singing a religious song in church. It 
just does not seem to be fair. It is not right. And it is 
discriminatory.

                              {time}  2230

  I believe the time has come that we need to stop discriminating 
against the kind of tolerance that expresses religious traditions while 
we protect the kind of tolerance that allows hate and racism to be 
expressed as with the swastika and many other symbols that the Supreme 
Court has allowed to be protected.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I certainly agree with the gentleman. Unfortunately, some 
people seem to have this notion that tolerance is a one-way street. 
They expect us to tolerate expressions by people who are way out of the 
ordinary, and certainly I believe in protecting the rights of 
minorities of whatever type they may be, but that does not mean that 
you disregard the rights of the majority because the first amendment 
was meant for all of us.
  I hear some people say, the first amendment and the religious 
protections in it were intended to protect the minority from the 
majority, but I think that cuts both ways. Yes, it is intended to 
protect the minority from the majority, but it is also to protect the 
majority as well. And to say that it only protects some of us and not 
others is certainly not equal protection of the laws and it is not what 
the Founding Fathers intended.
  Yet I think of instances, in Denver, Colorado, a year or two ago, 
this organization known as Americans United for Separation of Church 
and State got involved really in an incredible way, because they were 
going to have a prayer luncheon and the governor was going to be a part 
of it, and they put out this press release saying, oh, it is terrible 
for a public official to be involved in a prayer breakfast or a prayer 
luncheon because they are public officials and, therefore, I guess 
supposedly they are not supposed to have any religious expression of 
religious freedom. Yet they were condemning the idea of having a 
community prayer luncheon and letting public officials be a part of it. 
That was outrageous to me.
  You look, right now the State of Ohio, Ohio has a State motto. Their 
State motto is, ``With God all things are possible.'' They are being 
sued by the ACLU saying. You cannot use the State motto; you cannot put 
it up.
  Like I mentioned before, we have ``In God We Trust'' over the 
Speaker's chair here in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. 
But they are suing, saying the State of Ohio better not say, ``With God 
all things are possible.''
  Look at the State seal of Florida; it says, ``In God we trust'' on 
the State seal of Florida. There are other expressions on other State 
seals and State flags.
  I look at West Virginia, where the ACLU is suing there to say you 
cannot have prayers to start football games. What kind of intolerance 
is this? Yet in this topsy-turvy world, some people try to say, oh, we 
are practicing tolerance by telling people to be silent. That is not 
tolerance. That is intolerance of the worst order because it picks on 
people's religious faith.
  I know when it comes to saying that it is once again possible for 
students at school and, if they wish, in the classroom to have a prayer 
at the start of the day and, as you mentioned, you protect everybody's 
rights, you have it rotated and you make sure that it is not just one 
faith that gets to say a prayer and others do not, the religious 
freedom amendment does not countenance that sort of thing, but it gives 
people the opportunity.
  I think back on my experience, and I am 48 years old; maybe once or 
twice in 48 years of life thousands and thousands of prayers I have 
ever heard, only maybe once or twice in my life has there ever been a 
prayer that I heard that I thought was out of place.
  I think when you talk about having prayers in public schools and 
thousands of public schools, what turns out to be millions of times a 
year probably, that it is going to be extremely rare if there is going 
to be any sort of prayer that is offensive. Do you say that if you are 
afraid that somebody is going to say something wrong, you force 
everyone to be silent? That is not the American way. If something 
happens that is wrong, that is how you learn. You learn from those 
experiences.
  These scare tactics that some people are using, the ACLU-type groups, 
saying, people are going to be coming into our schools to do this and 
that; no, they are not. This amendment does not give anybody the right 
to walk into a public school. It talks about the rights of those who 
have a right to be there, just as everybody does not have the right to 
come in and disrupt the proceedings of this House or to go into some 
other government office and be disruptive, there is no right to be 
disruptive just because you have a right to free speech.
  Mr. BISHOP. That is a very interesting concept that the gentleman 
just raised, because I hear a lot of the opponents or the critics of 
the amendment suggesting, how are we going to regulate this? How are we 
going to control who comes in and what they say?
  We already have in place the mechanisms for controlling the orderly 
processes of our government operations, for example, the rules of this 
House, for the operation of our schools, the principals, the school 
board, the teachers, the faculty. They have a routine. They have 
procedures. Students know when they are allowed to speak and when they 
should remain silent. They know that they have to cease speaking while 
another child is giving his or her recitation or responding in class. 
There is a protocol.
  I believe that the people in this country, our school boards in this 
country, are as creative and as ingenious and as bright as it takes to 
be able to establish the right kinds of protocol so that every child 
would be given the opportunity to express him or herself in a way that 
is evenhanded.
  We live in a melting pot. America has been always a melting pot with 
many, many backgrounds and many generations of people coming from all 
over the world to make their home on these soils. I believe that they 
bring a very, very interesting set of backgrounds and histories and 
religious traditions which is a part of our national cultural heritage. 
We must be willing to expose ourselves and to listen to it, not 
necessarily agree with everything we hear, but to listen, to listen 
respectfully and to form our own opinions.
  I believe that is what this religious freedom amendment is all about. 
It is not about cramming one particular point of view down anyone's 
throat. It is about allowing all of the ideas, allowing young people, 
allowing people who have religious beliefs to be able to express them 
as they can express any other form of free speech in any context that 
is not inhibiting and is not discriminatory.
  I just believe that what the gentleman is trying to do through this 
amendment and what we all want to see for America will help us to have 
a much richer heritage and a much more tolerant environment. I do not 
believe that anybody will be put upon, and I do not believe that any 
school board would stand for anyone being put upon. Should that happen, 
those instances where someone abuses that authority, it will be 
appropriate for the ACLU or for parents or for the community to rise up 
in arms, to rise up in protest legally or otherwise to make sure that 
those wrongs are righted.

  Mr. ISTOOK. I think the gentleman has stated things very well. I 
appreciate your recognition and expression of the fact that this 
amendment is about tolerance.
  Some people have developed the mistaken notion that if they are 
present when somebody says something with which they disagree, that 
they have been put upon. Well, hearing something with which you 
disagree and being respectful of it does not mean you agree with it. It 
happens all the time on the floor of this House. It happens all the 
time in classrooms at school. And to single out religion and say, you 
cannot

[[Page H1014]]

say something that does not have unanimous approval because it 
infringes on someone else's rights, what you are really doing is 
stomping on the rights of almost everyone just because somebody there 
is intolerant.
  I think of the case, this was the graduation prayer case, the prayer 
there was said by a Jewish rabbi. The Supreme Court said it was 
unconstitutional to expect people to be there because they would be 
expected to be respectful. That interfered with their constitutional 
rights.
  I suggest to you and to everyone that if they said, well, we expect 
students to be respectful when somebody is speaking, we expect them to 
be respectful if the school choir is singing a song, we expect them to 
be respectful of all the occasions, but if it is a prayer, you cannot 
expect respect.
  What a terrible doctrine the Supreme Court unleashed there. We have 
to correct it. You do not have free speech if you can only say things 
with which people agree.
  If I could close and just share a thought expressed recently, just 
about 3 months ago by Pope John Paul II, concerned with religious 
freedom in the United States of America, when he received the new 
American ambassador to the Vatican just in December. He said this: ``It 
would truly be a sad thing if the religious and moral convictions upon 
which the American experiment was founded could now somehow be 
considered a danger to free society, such that those who would bring 
these convictions to bear upon your Nation's public life would be 
denied a voice in debating and resolving issues of public policy. The 
original separation of church and State in the United States was 
certainly not an effort to ban all religious convictions from the 
public sphere, a kind of banishment of God from civil society.''
  Those were the words of Pope John Paul II just in December, 
expressing concern about religious freedom being stripped away in 
America.
  The religious freedom amendment will correct that. I thank the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). I thank the Chair for having the 
time to present it. I look forward to the day in the next few weeks 
when we will have a chance to debate and to act upon this House floor 
on the religious freedom amendment.

                          ____________________