[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.
____________________