[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3083-H3090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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, this evening I think it is important that we 
talk about one of the very first liberties, one of the very first 
freedoms of the United States of America, something which motivated 
people to cross the ocean hundreds of years ago in some very small and 
leaky ships.
  I am talking about people such as those who first came to Jamestown, 
those who were the Puritans and pilgrims who were motivated to come to 
the United States, in large part because they wanted a land of 
religious freedom. They wanted a land where everyone was free to 
worship or not worship according to the dictates of their own 
conscience and not be compelled by the government to give obeisance to 
any particular faith but certainly to have the freedom without 
intimidation, whether in private or in public, to express their faith 
in God.
  I bring this to the attention of the House tonight, Mr. Speaker, 
because this is a liberty that is the first one enshrined in our Bill 
of Rights and yet which is jeopardized by a series of U.S. Supreme 
Court decisions that basically go back to 1962, decisions that are 
decisions that discriminate against those who wish to pray at public 
school, against school prayer. Voluntary school prayer even is not 
permitted in the same way that free speech and free religion should 
permit it. It is restricted at public school graduations.
  The Ten Commandments, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, are 
unconstitutional if someone tries to display them in a schoolhouse. 
They have struck down nativity scenes and not only Christian emblems 
but, for example, a Jewish menorah whose display at a county courthouse 
was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, even though, Mr. Speaker, we 
open sessions of this House with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to 
the flag and we are in a Chamber which has many religious symbols, in a 
building which has many religious symbols, in a place which has many 
religious symbols. But the U.S. Supreme Court has been ruling that 
those are taboo, they are off limits, they are unconstitutional if they 
are involved in a public place such as in the school or a courthouse or 
many other public forums.
  It is because of those threats, Mr. Speaker, that over 150 Members of 
this body have banded together as sponsors of the religious freedom 
amendment, a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution upon which we 
will be voting in this House of Representatives in approximately 3 
weeks from now, because it is about time that we correct what the U.S. 
Supreme Court has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer for the Record, and I will give it 
to the Clerk in a minute, a very simple fact sheet about the religious 
freedom amendment. Mr. Speaker, this particular sheet is from a recent 
publication by the Ethics of Religious Liberty Commission of the 
Southern Baptist Convention, one of the great number of religious 
groups in this country who are supporting this amendment.
  The religious freedom amendment reads, very simply and very 
straightforward. It is as follows:
  ``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 rights to pray and to 
recognize the religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public 
property, including schools, shall not be infringed. 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.''

  That is the text of the proposed religious freedom amendment, upon 
which we will be voting shortly, to correct the decisions of the U.S. 
Supreme Court which have pushed our country in the wrong direction, not 
in a direction of neutrality, but in a direction of hostility towards 
religion.
  And reading from the facts sheet of the Southern Baptist Convention 
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, what the religious freedom 
amendment would and would not do:
  It would correct years of judicial misinterpretation of the 
establishment clause. It would not revoke the establishment clause.
  It would reverse many of the restrictions that courts have placed 
upon the free exercise of religion on government property in general 
and public schools in particular. It would not permit government-
sponsored religion or proselytizing.
  It would allow greater freedom for students who wish to pray. It 
would not require prayer in public schools.
  It would require government to treat all religions fairly. It would 
not permit preference for one religion or sect over another.
  It would advance belief in religious freedom. It would not advance 
any particular religious belief.
  It would give greater protection to individuals against government 
intrusion. It would not create any new right for government.
  It would guarantee that no person be discriminated against on account 
of religion. It would not require that any person be given special 
status on account of religion.
  It would require equal access to all people, regardless of religion. 
It would not require unreasonable access to government facilities.
  It would protect the liberty of conscience of all people. It would 
not protect only the liberty of people of a majority faith or of a 
minority faith or of no faith.
  That is a good succinct summary, because, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to 
be brief about the many problems that have come from these Supreme 
Court decisions.
  It was 1962 when the Supreme Court said that even when it is totally 
voluntary by students, they cannot come together during school time in 
public school to have a prayer together. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am so 
pleased that so many millions of Americans have at least done as much 
as they could, forming different Bible clubs and huddles of groups, 
like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, that meet before school and 
after school and do everything that they are permitted to do, but they 
are not permitted the same freedom and the same rights that apply to 
other school clubs in our public schools.
  It was later, it was in 1980, that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 
Stone v. Graham case said, you cannot display the Ten Commandments on 
the wall of the school because, as they wrote, ``Students might read 
them and they might obey them.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that would be good for the 
students in public schools to obey today, it would be the Ten 
Commandments. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is what they take down, 
whether it be on the walls of the school or on the walls of a 
courthouse. And yet we have the image of Moses looking straight upon 
us, Mr. Speaker, directly across from us on the walls of this House of 
Representatives; and his image is there because of the Ten 
Commandments.
  It was followed by other Supreme Court decisions. It was 1985 that 
they had maybe the most outrageous decision of all, the Wallace v. 
Jaffrey case. The State of Alabama had a law that said we can at least 
have a moment of public silence in public schools. And the U.S. Supreme 
Court said, no, we cannot have a moment of silence; that is 
unconstitutional, because students could use it for silent prayer.
  And it was a 5-4 decision. It could have gone so easily the other 
way. But it prompted the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 
William Rehnquist, to say this about what the Supreme Court did with 
prayer in public schools. Justice Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. 
Jaffrey, ``George Washington himself, at the request of the very 
Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public 
thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful 
hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge 
whether it was the father of this country in 1789 or a majority of the 
court today which has strayed from the meaning of the establishment 
clause.''
  The Supreme Court was not satisfied with that. They had the decision, 
I believe the correct year was 1990, that held that a nativity scene 
and a Jewish menorah on display at a county courthouse in Pennsylvania, 
were unconstitutional because they said they were

[[Page H3084]]

not balanced with non-religious emblems, such as Santa Claus or Rudolph 
or Frosty the Snowman. And yet the same Supreme Court has never said 
you cannot have Rudolph unless you balance him with Baby Jesus or a 
Jewish menorah, or whatever it might be. The Supreme Court has gone the 
wrong direction.
  And then 1992, the graduation prayer case, a Jewish rabbi invited to 
offer a prayer at a public school graduation in Rhode Island was told 
afterwards that was unconstitutional because there are some students 
who might not want to be respectful.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, since when have we said we do not want to teach 
students to be respectful in public schools? Since when have we said 
that whether we agree or disagree with something, we ought to at least 
have the courtesy to be able to listen to it and to take something that 
is intended to be positive without blowing up and literally making a 
Federal case out of it? Because Mr. Speaker, the intolerance is not on 
the part of someone who wants to be able to offer a prayer in a public 
setting.

                              {time}  2045

  The intolerance, unfortunately, is on those who want to stifle and 
censor that prayer.
  Mr. Speaker, the religious freedom amendment follows the mechanism 
established by the Founding Fathers to correct these and other 
distortions of our religious freedom that the first amendment has been 
twisted into saying when it does not really say that. But the Supreme 
Court has found it there, and it is our job to fix it and to correct 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and 
I thank him for consistently leading this fight for the religious 
freedom amendment. You are constantly out there.
  There are many of us who help you. As you said, I think there are 
150-plus cosponsors of this amendment in the House. But, clearly, your 
leadership has made a difference here as we are bringing the attention 
of the country to the constitutional rights, not that we need to put it 
in the Constitution, but that we need to restore the Constitution.
  Every time I read about this, every time I think about this, every 
time we discuss it here on the floor or in other places, I am more and 
more convinced that this effort is really merely an effort to restore 
the Constitution to what it was for 175 years.
  Before 1962, there really was no question in America about the place 
of religion in our society. There was no question in our history about 
how the Founding Fathers had felt about religious freedom and the 
difference, as they say it, between establishing one religion and 
eliminating God from country. In fact, every piece of money that we 
have has ``In God we trust'' on that money. How much more of a 
commitment to faith can we make than ``In God we trust'' on that money?
  As you see the potential for the amendment, as you and I see the 
Constitution, I do not think we are in disagreement with the Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court when you cited earlier when Judge 
Rehnquist said that this misinterpretation, this misunderstanding of 
separation of church and State creates incredible mischief in our 
society.
  In fact, also, it creates a disadvantage for religious groups who 
cannot do, in a public facility, what virtually any other group could 
do, any club could do, any group of students coming together could do 
unless they want to talk about religion, unless they want to study the 
Bible on public property, unless they want to have prayer in a public 
assembly that everybody agrees with.
  Clearly, we are rethinking America. I heard just here in Washington 
last week a person has recently written a great book on General 
Washington. He talked about the attributes that made Washington 
distinctive. As I left that breakfast meeting and got to thinking about 
the packed crowd that heard those attributes about Washington, it 
occurred to me immediately that the one attribute that he left out was 
Washington's faith.
  I advance you cannot understand Washington without understanding his 
faith. You cannot understand many of the founders without understanding 
their faith. I do not think you can understand their belief in the kind 
of government they were establishing unless you understand that they 
thought it was a government established for a Nation that would be 
built on godly principles and that those godly principles would be 
taught.
  Whether it was the posting of the Ten Commandments in school, the 
same Ten Commandments that the Supreme Court sets under the lawgiver as 
they talk about why we could not have the Ten Commandments posted in 
the school, or other religious teachings, I think the founders clearly 
thought that that was part of our society, part of how you define a 
community.
  I have got here the copy of a city seal from a community in the 
district of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), Edmond, Oklahoma, 
except that is what the community seal used to look like.
  Mr. ISTOOK. That is correct.
  Mr. BLUNT. As I understand it, the community seal does not look like 
this anymore. The community seal still has these three reflections of 
community, but this is now a blank spot.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes.
  Mr. BLUNT. Is that right?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has is a copy of the 
city seal which had been adopted a number of years ago by Edmond, 
Oklahoma, which is in my congressional district. You can see a multiple 
number of emblems on it. You see at the top some oil derricks and a 
locomotive. You see on the left the tower from the University of 
Central Oklahoma, which is located there. On the bottom, you have a 
covered wagon in 1899 from the Land Run of 1899. You have a pair of 
hands above that, collapsed in friendship. Then to the right of that, 
you have a cross as a symbol of the community's great religious faith.
  Unfortunately, a lawsuit was brought, and, ultimately, when it got to 
the Supreme Court, the ruling of the Supreme Court said the cross has 
got to go. It was a great shock to a great many people, because they 
did not mean that as an expression to say that you have to be of one 
faith or another faith, but they did want to say that religious worship 
is a vital part of the lives of people in the community. It is part of 
the tradition or heritage or beliefs of the community, as we mention, 
of course, in the religious freedom amendment.
  Edmond is not alone. Still, Ohio has had to take a Bible off of its 
city seal. You had a case in Eugene, Oregon where a cross, large cross 
had to be taken down from public property; one where the Supreme Court 
ruled last year that a cross, which it stood for almost 70 years in a 
public park in San Francisco, had to come down. You have a similar case 
in Hawaii. All over the place. Anything that involves a religious 
symbol on public property is coming down.
  In part, that somewhat begs the issue of, well, how far do you want 
to go in knocking down religious symbols. You mention, of course, that 
on our currency we have ``In God we trust.'' You look right behind you 
and above the Speaker's head, and we have it here in the House Chamber, 
``In God we trust.''
  You have States with mottos like that. In Ohio, their State motto is 
``With God, all things are possible.'' The ACLU is suing them right now 
to have them stop using the State motto in Ohio. It is one of all sorts 
of cases against prayer in public places and football games and on 
other occasions.
  But when you say that because a symbol has religious value to some 
people, therefore it has to be considered suspect and stricken down. I 
mean, let us look at what the Supreme Court has done. They have struck 
down the cross. But the same Supreme Court in 1977 said a Nazi 
swastika, a symbol of hate, was protected for display at a public march 
on public streets in Skokie, Illinois, in a community that had many 
Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, the effort to exterminate Jews. 
A symbol of hate the Supreme Court said was protected.
  They backed that up in 1992, striking down a hate crimes law because 
it was against things such as Nazi swastikas or burning crosses. If you 
carry on with those, I mean how far do you want to go?

[[Page H3085]]

  A beetle is an ancient Egyptian religious emblem. Eagle feathers are 
considered sacred to many American Indians. You have other occasions. 
Things that are considered sacred to one religion, do we say because it 
is sacred to some religion, that therefore it cannot be displayed on 
public property? I know that you are going through this right now in 
your district in a community in Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are. I think the point here we ought to 
make, too, is everything seems to be protected in our society except 
those things that relate to faith. In Edmond, Oklahoma, this cross was 
a symbol of faith. I do not think they came up with anything that was 
acceptable to replace that symbol so far as the city seal is concerned.
  Mr. ISTOOK. They took off the cross and left a blank spot.
  Mr. BLUNT. There is a blank spot. So where there was faith, there is 
now a blank spot. Where the community used to say we are a community 
based on faith, there is now a blank spot.
  We have got a community in my district in southwest Missouri, the 
city of Republic that is going through exactly that same thing right 
now. There is a copy of their city seal. Of course Republic is located 
just about where that star is.
  What does the seal say about that community? It says with this 
helping hand that this is a community that reaches out and helps 
people. It says with this family that this is a community based on 
family. Maybe we could even say family values, though that might get 
that struck off the seal as well, but certainly based on the concept of 
family.
  Of course this symbol, that is a symbol for faith, and, of course, in 
this case, a specific faith, but that is clearly the predominant faith 
in that community.
  Nobody came to the city council in Republic and said there are other 
faith groups in this community; could we put some more, could we create 
a collage of symbols here? That is not the challenge. The challenge is 
to eliminate this from the seal. The challenge is to do exactly what 
Edmond, Oklahoma did and wind up with a big white blotch where faith 
used to be.
  Of course the ACLU is coming into this small southwest Missouri 
community. They are saying we are going to go to court. It is going to 
cost you about $100,000 to fight us. Do you want to fight, or do you 
want to give in? At this point, the city council, and I think the vast 
majority of people in that community, say we want to fight because this 
is what our community is all about.
  Not everybody that lives in Republic lives in a family with children 
still at home. Probably as great as the community is, not everybody is 
totally helpful. But these are overall reflections of what that 
community is all about. Not everybody goes to church on Sunday, but the 
vast majority of people believe that church on Sunday is important.
  That is why that seal is that way and why that community, like the 
many you have mentioned now, suddenly has to decide can we fund this 
fight? Can we finance this fight? Is this a fight? Not even as much 
whether we can win it or not as should we give into clearly this 
blackmail virtually against what we want our city seal to look like.
  So they are fighting that same fight right now; and if the opposition 
wins, just, perhaps like Edmond, Oklahoma, suddenly faith will be gone 
as a reflection of that community.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I might mention, because I have read comments from 
different city officials and the city of Republic, and they make the 
point that that is meant to be an emblem of religion, the principles of 
religion generally as opposed to saying it has to be any one particular 
faith.
  Indeed, I asked the Congressional Research Service to look at this 
for me. They gave me information today that, actually, the symbol of a 
fish has been used for thousands of years around the world, even before 
Christianity has been used for a thousand of years, even before the 
life of Christ as a religious symbol. They indicated it had been used 
in China, in India, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome in Scandinavia, in the 
Mideast, even before Jesus Christ was born.
  Mr. BLUNT. So our research here indicates this is a universal kind of 
symbol that reflects faith, religion, not exclusive, but reflective of 
something that that community would think was important.
  Mr. ISTOOK. But there is no perfect symbol. There will always be, to 
any symbol, some people who object, saying I do not like that. In the 
case of Edmond, Oklahoma, I thought it was an outrageous comment, but 
they had a person saying, well, every time I see the city seal on a 
police car or something, it makes me feel like a second-class citizen.
  So what the courts did was they elevated this subjective approach, 
the fact that somebody felt bad maybe because they were thin-skinned or 
sensitive or maybe they had had some unfortunate incidents in their 
life, but because somebody felt bad, it trumped the constitutional 
rights of free speech and free expression and freedom of religion of 
everybody else.
  That is the problem with the court decisions. They say unless it is 
unanimous, unless everybody agrees on some religious expression, you 
cannot have it, and maybe not even then.
  Well, you do not expect that of anything else. Why use the first 
amendment as a weapon against religion, which is what the courts are 
doing, saying that you do not have freedom of expression of religion, 
that it is supposedly creating a freedom from hearing about religion on 
behalf of people that do not want to hear it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Every poll I see, if the gentleman would yield, indicates 
that 98 percent of Americans believe in God.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes.
  Mr. BLUNT. It is hard to think of anything else that 98 percent of 
all Americans would believe in that we would have to eradicate from our 
discussion, from our symbols, from our public places of assembly. In 
fact, I am not sure there is anything else that 98 percent of all 
Americans believe in.
  We try to focus our public discourse and our public displays under 
these court rulings as if the 2 percent were the 98 percent; that we 
all have to believe and act like we do not believe in any being greater 
than ourselves; that faith is not part of not only communities, but 
part of individual lives. It is just not there.
  I do not think there is another example of anything that is so 
universally held by Americans, that is so universally rejected by the 
Supreme Court over the last 30 years; that was so universally accepted 
by the Supreme Court in the 175 years that were closer to the founders 
who wrote the Constitution and added that Bill of Rights.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. ISTOOK. Let me just make a quick reference. I know there is 
another member that would like to get involved in this. We look at our 
currency, and this is the back of the one dollar bill, it says, of 
course, ``in God we trust.''
  A lot of people do not notice something else. If you look here in 
this circle of the Great Seal of the United States, on the front side 
of it you have the eagle, and above its head is a cluster of 13 stars. 
But look at the pattern in which those stars are arranged. It is a Star 
of David, the symbol of another faith, Judaism. Are we to say that the 
Great Seal of the United States of America is unconstitutional because 
it includes an emblem of the Jewish faith? I do not think so.
  I think that that shows, again, a recognition and what should be an 
acceptance of many different faiths, but you do it by permitting, not 
by excluding.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
  Mr. DICKEY. Let me show my support for what you all are talking about 
by telling a little story that occurred in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, my 
hometown. We had a Fellowship of Christian Athletes there, it was 
trying to get started, and a minister was trying to sponsor it. He 
worked hard at it, but he could come only at certain times, so some of 
us were called and asked as laymen to come help with the program.
  We had five or six people that were coming to the meetings once a 
week. We started working on it, a bunch of our communities started 
working on it, and we got the attendance up to maybe 200 in a given 
week. We set records as far as sending people to the national 
conference. We had 75 that went to Tulsa one year. We had three buses 
of

[[Page H3086]]

kids. We had kids that were working after school on these projects and 
on the weekends. We had what is called an Olympics Day, as I recall, 
and we had a contest. We made up our own athletic contest. We did 
things with the cheerleaders and the girls.
  So, what happened? Slowly the opposition started building. First of 
all, people came in and said, ``Oh, you are taking money away from the 
school.'' We said, ``No, we have been raising money and putting it into 
the school Treasury, and at the end of the year the school has been 
taking it. So the school has been making money off of it.'' They said, 
``This is supported by a church.'' We said, ``No, it is not. We do not 
even have a minister who is involved.''
  So that went by the wayside. Then they said at one point we were 
favoring one donut store over others, and that was the reason we were 
having the breakfast meetings.
  Then we prayed for victories before the game. We said yes, we did. We 
prayed for victories, the kids prayed for victories before the game. We 
also prayed we had good health and that no one was hurt on the other 
side either.
  Finally, finally, after about seven or eight years, a letter came 
from a person of another faith who said, ``We are going to have to 
consider legal action if you all do not stop or disband the Fellowship 
of Christian Athletes.''
  I happened to take a call after we said we couldn't continue, after 
the school said we could not go any further, I happened to take a call 
from one of the kids who said, Mr. Dickey, why are we not going to have 
the FCA anymore?
  I could not answer it then, and I cannot answer it now, because what 
we have done is we have said to the parents and to the families, that 
which you are teaching your children at home and that which your 
pastors, when you take your kids to church, that what your pastors are 
teaching your kids and the Sunday school classes, those things are 
against the law. God is against the law. You cannot mention him in your 
schools, unless in fact you do it by taking God's name in vain. Of 
course, that is protected. But you cannot mention God. You are not 
going to have anything like Jesus Christ being mentioned, because that 
is against the law.
  In 1962, in my opinion, when we decided in our wisdom that we were 
going to take over the schools and not give God any place, he sat there 
and probably said, ``Okay, we will just see how you all work it out. I 
have carried it forward.''
  Harvard was a theological school. Our kids were taught in the early 
days by ministers. They were the teachers in the early days. We had 
Bible-believing people who brought this country to where it is. It was 
not because we were the smartest, it was not because we were the 
hardest working, it was not because we were the most militarily strong 
country. It is because God was blessing our country like no other 
country in the history of the world.
  So what are we doing? We are turning our back on God and saying, ``We 
can take it from here; you go worry about somebody in some other 
area.'' We are reaping the whirlwind because of that.
  I am very much in favor of this, Mr. Istook, and I want you to know 
that I appreciate very much what you have said, and I am very happy to 
be here and discuss this with you. I think it is a vital issue, and I 
think the real America, the America that wants to respond and say thank 
you to the founders, is solidly behind us, and I think it is only our 
duty to go forward and present it for a vote.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
  I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the many Members who have joined together 
in supporting this amendment, because the American people have never 
accepted what the Supreme Court has done in taking the First Amendment, 
which is meant to protect religion, as a shield for freedom of 
religion, and instead they have used it as a weapon, as a sword against 
religious freedom, saying that, you know, you have enough chance to 
speak freely about your religion in private, or maybe at church or 
other places, and you do not need to be able to do so if you are 
present on public property.
  Yet our children are required to be at school, because we want them 
to be educated. We want to have a society that is self-sufficient and 
self-reliant, and that means an educated population. But why do we say 
that during the time when you are required by law to be at school, you 
are also required by law to be isolated from normal religious activity, 
things as simple and common and ordinary and as positive as a prayer, 
the simple prayer of a child of faith and hope at the start of the day? 
And if children want to join together and have a prayer, let them do 
so.
  To say that we believe in religious diversity means that we recognize 
there will be different prayers offered. The Religious Freedom 
Amendment carefully makes sure that we do not have government officials 
composing a prayer or insisting that a prayer must be said or insisting 
that anybody must take part in a prayer. There is an express 
prohibition against that. But yet there is the freedom, the 
opportunity, the ability for people to join in prayer together.
  I think that it is a sad day to read, as I read in one newspaper 
recently, can you imagine a newspaper editorial writer actually wrote, 
``Freedom to pray should stop at the schoolhouse door.'' I read that in 
the Arizona republic, in an editorial that they wrote just in this last 
week. They said ``Freedom to pray should stop at the schoolhouse 
door.''

  Now, what else are we going to say? Does that newspaper want freedom 
of the press to stop at the schoolhouse door? Do they want to say that 
newspapers should be banned in public schools because, after all, they 
may bring in ideas that not everyone likes? They may bring in some 
things that are controversial. They may bring in things that make some 
people uncomfortable. They may bring in, along with the news and 
information of the day, they may bring in some negative influences too. 
Do we say, therefore, that the bad outweighs the good and we should not 
have free speech?
  No. We have free speech because we believe that most speech is good, 
that most ideas are reasonably presented, and if that means that 
sometimes there is a price to pay, that we let someone with an 
unpopular idea have the respect for their ideas, just as respect is 
given to good ideas, then we understand that.
  I heard a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, in the last week take to 
the floor and say that, well, he was concerned that supposedly what we 
are doing is opening the door for unpopular groups or cults, or even a 
group such as a satanic group, to come into schools.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this does not open the door for just anybody to 
come into school. The schoolhouse door is open for children, for those 
who have a right to be there. This amendment does nothing to invite 
other people in.
  But if we believe in the right to pray, his opinion was that you will 
only have negative influences and you will only have negative prayers, 
or at least that is all that he seems to hear.
  But, Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime, in my lifetime, it is almost never 
that I have ever heard in public or private a prayer that is anything 
other than a positive experience; and if in order to hear millions of 
positive prayers, do we say that we are going to suppress them just 
because once in a very extremely isolated incident there may be someone 
who uses that same freedom to say something that almost all of us would 
not like, do we therefore ban prayers in public schools?
  I think not. Besides which, if you want to look at the negative 
influences in school, you will have many people that will tell you, you 
have already got the devil in public schools, because they will point 
to the rates of crime, they will point to the rates of violence, they 
will point to drug use, they will point to alcohol, they will point to 
gangs, they will point to teenage pregnancies. And do not tell me that 
you do not have devilish influences in public schools. But yet what the 
Supreme Court does is not to keep out that type of influence, but to 
keep out the good, godly, positive, uplifting, spiritual prayers and 
influences.
  That is what has happened. It is the sanitizing of that which is 
good, and leaving only that which is base or suspect or negative. That 
is what happens when you try to remove the positive religious 
influences from a society.
  Government does not have the job of telling us what to believe or 
that we

[[Page H3087]]

must believe anything about religion, but it also should not have the 
job of censoring those who want to simply recognize their religious 
heritage or religion or to offer a simple prayer, who have a right to 
be in public schools, that are required by law to be in public school. 
And the ones who want to pray are the true captive audience in our 
public schools, because they are not permitted to do what is normal and 
good.
  We have prayer to open sessions of this House. We have prayers to 
open sessions of State legislatures and city councils, chamber of 
commerce meetings, Kiwanis Club meetings, Rotary Club meetings and a 
vast number of organizations and groups within our society, because 
they know it is something that is powerful, something that is good, 
something that is part of the common bond that brings us together and 
puts the accent on what we share, not only how we are different.
  I think it is useful to understand, as a Supreme Court justice wrote, 
that you do not isolate children from the understanding that, yes, 
there are different ways that people go about these things. There are 
different ways in which people may offer the prayer. There are 
different faiths. And if you believe in diversity, you do not believe 
in isolating children from that knowledge, until suddenly they are 
adult and say oh, this is an adult topic. Now you are ready to handle 
it.
  No, this is a topic that starts at our very earliest age, and is 
something that brings with it the values and traditions and beliefs of 
the United States of America itself.
  Mr. Speaker, it was a sad day when organizations such as the ACLU 
persuaded the Supreme Court to distort the First Amendment, and we have 
had a number of sad days since then where they have continued to 
distort it, to use it not to promote religious freedom, but to use it 
as a weapon against religion.
  So I find there are some myths that are out there. There is a myth, 
some say, oh, the amendment is not really needed. We do not need a 
religious freedom amendment; we have the First Amendment already.
  Mr. Speaker, if we were talking about the First Amendment as 
understood by the Founding Fathers, I think we would all agree, because 
then we would not have the warping of it from the courts. But as I 
mentioned before, in 1962 the court struck down not only mandatory, but 
also voluntarily, prayers by students together in public schools. In 
1980 they said the Ten Commandments have to come down. In 1985 they 
said it is unconstitutional to have a moment of silence. In 1992 they 
said a prayer at a school graduation was unconstitutional.
  What we have left is not neutrality towards religion. It is negative. 
Yes, school Bible clubs may exist, but they are under restrictions that 
do not apply to other school clubs.
  The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William 
Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree talked about how people throw around, 
rather than the language of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof, they throw around instead a catch-phrase which they 
call separation of church and State. But I find what they mean by it 
and what different people mean will vastly vary. Because, you see, Mr. 
Speaker, we have people that believe that as government has grown, it 
is in every aspect of our society today. It is larger than it ever has 
been before.

                              {time}  2115

  As government has grown, if the rule is separation of church and 
State, where government goes religion cannot be. Where government 
enters religion must exit. If they say separation of church and State 
is the guideline, then that means as government grows, religion must 
shrink.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the Chief Justice William Rehnquist 
wrote about it. This was in that moment of silence case, Wallace v. 
Jaffree. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William 
Rehnquist, said the use of the term separation of church and State has 
caused what he called ``a mischievous diversion of judges from the 
actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. A metaphor 
based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to 
judging what should be, frankly and explicitly, abandoned.'' That is 
the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Now, I am not proposing that we abandon the proper interpretation, 
but it has been twisted and distorted and used as a weapon against 
religion.
  Then we have another myth that somehow government would declare an 
official faith, that supposedly that is what people want with the 
Religious Freedom Amendment. Not so. That is why we expressly have the 
language in it to reiterate what the First Amendment already says, 
because we are not replacing it; we are only putting this to lay 
alongside it. But the Religious Freedom Amendment also says, ``Neither 
the United States nor any State shall establish any official 
religion.''
  Then we have the myth that, oh, society is more diverse. Nonsense. 
There were many different religions in the days of the Founding 
Fathers. There are many different religions today. If they say, well, 
some people do not want to hear the prayer, what they are really saying 
is that the most intolerant persons in our society are now told that 
they can stifle the rest of us. Not because there is anything wrong 
with what people are saying in a prayer or about their religion, but 
because some people are so intolerant, they do not want to hear it.
  We hear them say things like, oh, it makes me feel bad, or I feel 
like I do not belong. Mr. Speaker, all of us at one time or another in 
our lives feel like we may not belong. But part of life is learning 
that we do belong, and that we believe in things that are common, and 
the Religious Freedom Amendment restates what we have in common.
  Then we have the myth that religion belongs only in the home. Can we 
imagine if the Founding Fathers had written that we will have freedom 
of religion only in our homes and no place else; that as government 
grew and government property was everywhere, that we could not have 
freedom of religion if we were standing on government property?
  Whether it be standing in this Chamber of the House of 
Representatives, or standing in a schoolroom or in a classroom, to say 
that religious freedom stops when one goes into the schoolhouse, as 
this newspaper in Arizona said, is not the American way. It is not what 
we believe as Americans. And yet, the Supreme Court has been adopting 
that philosophy of saying the First Amendment is meant to protect from 
religion rather than to protect religion.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that this House, since 1971, will 
have a vote on a school prayer amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 
first time. It has been 27 years; that is far too long. The amendment 
has been through a number of hearings that were held all over the 
country by the Committee on the Judiciary over the last 2 or 3 years. 
It has been approved by the Subcommittee on the Constitution. It has 
been approved by the Committee on the Judiciary. It is supported by a 
multitude of religious and faith-based groups, because they believe 
that religious liberty indeed has been threatened in the United States 
of America by the Supreme Court decisions, which will be corrected by 
the Religious Freedom Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer two documents for the Record. One 
is a newspaper article from the Human Events publication that was 
published this week, an article I authored regarding the Religious 
Freedom Amendment. Also, I will provide to the Clerk, as well, a copy 
of a document that was written by the Ethics and Religious Liberty 
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. I would like to offer 
both of those to appear in the Record following my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that we cannot discuss everything about this 
amendment this evening, and we are continuing to discuss it. But I want 
to commend the attention of every Member of this body and anyone else 
who is interested in it that we do have a Web site that talks about 
much of this. That is, religiousfreedom.house.gov., and I hope that 
people will take a look at that because, Mr. Speaker, the American 
people need to tell their Member of Congress now that they want and 
expect their support for the Religious Freedom Amendment, we are 
approximately 3 weeks away from the vote the

[[Page H3088]]

first week in June, to say that once again in the schools of America, 
government will not insist that it happen, but we will permit students 
who want to engage in prayer in public school to be able to do so, 
whether it be a public school or a graduation or a football game, to 
give that freedom once more that has been taken away by these decisions 
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all who are hearing or watching this evening to 
contact their Member of Congress and tell them, we need you to support 
the Religious Freedom Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the material previously referred to is as follows:

                         Fact Sheet on the RFA

[The following is from a recent publication by the Ethics and Religious 
         Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention]

       The Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA) is a proposed 
     amendment to the United States Constitution. The language of 
     the amendment is as follows:
       ``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. 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.''

      What the Religious Freedom Amendment Would and Would Not Do:

       It WOULD correct years of judicial misinterpretation of the 
     establishment clause.
       It WOULD NOT revoke the establishment clause.
       It WOULD reverse many of the restrictions the courts have 
     placed upon the free exercise of religion, on government 
     property in general, and public schools in particular.
       It WOULD NOT permit government-sponsored religion or 
     proselytizing.
       It WOULD allow greater freedom for students who wish to 
     pray.
       It WOULD NOT ``require'' prayer in public schools.
       It WOULD require government to treat all religions fairly.
       It WOULD NOT permit preference for one religion or sect 
     over another.
       It WOULD advance belief in religious freedom.
       It WOULD NOT advance any particular religious belief.
       It WOULD give greater protection to individuals against 
     government intrusion.
       It WOULD NOT create any new right for government.
       It WOULD guarantee that no person be discriminated against 
     on account of religion.
       It WOULD NOT require than any person be given special 
     status on account of religion.
       It WOULD require equal access to all people regardless of 
     religion.
       It WOULD NOT require unreasonable access to government 
     facilities.
       It WOULD protect the liberty of conscience of all people.
       It WOULD NOT protect only the liberty of people of a 
     majority faith, or of a minority faith, or of no faith.

               Why do we need a constitutional amendment?

       ``We have given the courts more than 30 years to get this 
     issue right, and they have persisted in not doing so. 
     Legislative remedies would in all probability be overturned 
     by the present federal judiciary. It is time for the people 
     to give the courts further instructions . . . by the means 
     provided by our founders, namely amending the Constitution. 
     We must . . . constitutionally guarantee the free exercise of 
     public school students and all citizens. We do not ask for, 
     and do not want, government's help in expressing our beliefs 
     or acknowledging our religious heritage. The most and best 
     government can do is guarantee a level playing field and then 
     stay off the field.''

                                 ______
                                 

                   [From Human Events, May 15, 1998]

 Congress Soon to Vote on Religious Freedom Amendment--Refuting Seven 
                             Anti-RFA Myths

               (By Representative Ernest J. Istook, Jr.)


                    the religious freedom amendment

       ``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. 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.''
       In the first week of June, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives is expected to vote on the Religious Freedom 
     Amendment (RFA), also known as House Joint Resolution (HJ 
     Res) 78. It will be the first time in nearly 28 years that 
     the House has held a vote on a proposed constitutional 
     amendment dealing with voluntary school prayer and religious 
     freedom.
       It will correct 36 years of Supreme Court decisions that 
     have warped the original plain and simple meaning of our 
     religious rights under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. 
     Here is what it will do:
       For the first time, our Constitution will mention America's 
     belief in God. Every one of our 50 states has an express 
     reference to God within their state Constitutions. The 
     Religious Freedom Amendment does so for the federal 
     Constitution; it echoes the words in the Declaration of 
     Independence, where our Founding Fathers wrote that our 
     unalienable rights come not from government, but are an 
     endowment from our Creator.
       Student-initiated and voluntary prayers could be voiced in 
     public schools, whether in classrooms, school assemblies, 
     graduations, sporting events, or other occasions. Court 
     decisions restrict almost all school prayers; the minor 
     exceptions are usually limited to clubs that gather before or 
     after the school day, and even then only with special 
     controls. The RFA does not permit teachers or any other agent 
     of government to proselytize, or to dictate that any person 
     must join in prayer, or to prescribe what prayer should be 
     said.
       The Ten Commandments could again be posted in public 
     schools and other public buildings. The Supreme Court banned 
     the Ten Commandments from school buildings in 1980, but the 
     RFA directs that the people's religious beliefs, heritage and 
     traditions may again be recognized on public property, 
     including schools. (However, the RFA expressly maintains the 
     prohibition on any official religion for America!)
       Holiday displays such as Nativity scenes and menorahs, and 
     the singing of Christmas carols, would be protected on public 
     property. The Supreme Court has made it difficult or 
     impossible to recognize special occasions, and the threat of 
     lawsuits has intimidated schools to go even farther than the 
     court has dictated. The RFA fixes this.
       Government programs could not use religion as an excuse to 
     deny a benefit. There could be no direct government subsidy 
     to any religion or church, but when government creates a 
     program that furthers other purposes, it could not exclude 
     any group because of their religious affiliation. For 
     example, any government aid to nonpublic schools would have 
     to include families who send their child to a church-
     affiliated school. As another example, if private drug 
     treatment programs are funded, faith-based drug treatment 
     programs could not be excluded.
       Over 150 members of Congress have joined to co-sponsor the 
     Religious Freedom Amendment. Opponents of the left typically 
     resort to smear tactics against it and use hackneyed catch-
     phrases to try to control the issue and to limit debate.
       They attempt to mold the issue by getting the media to use 
     terms such as ``state-sponsored prayer,'' ``official 
     prayer,'' ``religious coercion,'' ``mandatory prayer,'' and 
     the ever-popular (but extremely misunderstood) ``separation 
     of church and state.''
       And a small number on the right claim that if we amend the 
     Constitution, we are agreeing that the Supreme Court 
     possessed the power to make the rulings that the RFA will 
     correct.
       In typical fashion, the mass media cover the myths about 
     the RFA rather than explore the issue. We who love the 
     Founding Father's concept of religious freedom must respond 
     to these myths with the truth about how our courts have 
     attacked that concept.


                 myth #1: Amendment Isn't Really Needed

       ``We don't need another constitutional amendment because 
     freedom of religion is fully protected under the 1st 
     Amendment, and we have the highest degree of religious 
     liberty anywhere in the world. Students already can pray, and 
     even meet in thousands of school Bible clubs. This new 
     proposal violates the constitutional principle of separation 
     of church and state.''
       The issue is not how much religious liberty remains, but 
     instead is how much has been lost. The record shows the 
     Supreme Court had misused the 1st Amendment to attack and 
     limit religion rather than to protect it as the 1st Amendment 
     intended. Prayer and religious speech are being restricted 
     when other speech is not, supposedly as required by this very 
     1st Amendment!
       In 1962, the court struck down not only mandatory and 
     government-composed prayers, but also prayers overlapping 
     with a school activity, even, they said ``when observance on 
     the part of the students is voluntary'' (Engel v. Vitale).
       In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments 
     cannot be displayed in public school (Stone v. Graham), 
     reasoning that otherwise the students might ``revere . . . 
     and obey them.''
       In 1985 (Wallace v. Jaffree) the court voided a moment of 
     silence law, saying it was unconstitutional because it would 
     have permitted silent prayer.
       A 1992 ruling (Lee v. Weisman) said a graduation prayer was 
     unconstitutional, because students shouldn't be asked to 
     respect religious expression.
       What we have left is not neutral toward religion. School 
     Bible clubs may exist, to be sure, but they are under 
     restrictions that don't apply to other school clubs. (They 
     cannot meet during school hours, or have an advisor, etc.)
       The phrase ``separation of church and state'' doesn't come 
     from the Constitution.

[[Page H3089]]

     The 1st Amendment was meant simply to affirm that America 
     never should make any faith an official or required 
     religion. ``Separation of church and state'' has been 
     pushed as a substitute, sponsored by those who are 
     intolerant of religion and those who believe in big 
     government. Under their approach, as government expands 
     into more aspects of life, religion must be pushed aside, 
     to assure that ``separation.'' It conveniently also pushes 
     aside the values that religion brings to our lives--values 
     often at odds with big government.
       The Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, 
     pinpointed the problem. Writing in his dissent in Wallace v. 
     Jaffree, Rehnquist wrote that this wrongful use of the term 
     ``separation of church and state'' 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.''


           myth #2: government will declare an official faith

       ``This allows a government to favor majority religions at 
     the expense of others--to declare an official faith, such as 
     designating us a `Christian Nation.' ''
       The RFA explicitly says otherwise; it does not permit any 
     faith to be given ``official'' status. Moreover, it does not 
     repeal the 1st Amendment (``Congress shall make no law 
     respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
     free exercise thereof''), but simply corrects its faulty 
     interpretation by the courts.
       Some seek to pervert the intent of the Bill of Rights by 
     claiming that it's intended to protect only minorities; the 
     true intent is to protect all of us, minority and majority. 
     But the courts are wrongfully using it to suppress the 
     majority who believe prayer and religious expression are 
     proper in public places.
       The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution does not 
     permit symbols of hate to be banned, such as a Nazi swastika. 
     Yet they say it does require the banning of symbols of love 
     and hope, such as a cross, or a Nativity scene on public 
     property. Government agencies have also banned religious 
     items and symbols from workers' desks, including Christian 
     and non-Christian items, and ``Merry Christmas'' and ``Happy 
     Hannukah'' banners in post offices.


                 myth #3: won't work in diverse society

       ``School prayer can't work in today's diverse society. 
     There's no way to decide who would pray, or who would compose 
     the prayer. And it makes a captive audience of students who 
     don't want to hear a prayer.''
       This myth is really a way of attacking free speech itself. 
     If nobody can speak unless everyone agrees, then we have 
     censorship, not freedom. It's dangerous to impose silence 
     simply because someone else disagrees.
       We don't ask ``How could free speech work?'' because we 
     know that neither the courts nor our government should make 
     that decision for us. The same is true with prayer and other 
     religious speech--individuals and groups can work together 
     however they see fit, so long as they don't compel anyone 
     else to take part. Didn't we all learn in kindergarten about 
     taking turns?
       Contrary to what the ``political correctness'' movement 
     seeks, there is no constitutional protection from hearing 
     something we don't like. In schools and public settings, we 
     learn to be tolerant by respecting differing views.
       The best model to follow is how we conduct the Pledge of 
     Allegiance. Most students recite it, but some sit silently, 
     and a few even leave the room. The Supreme Court ruled that 
     no student can be compelled to say the Pledge, but those who 
     object are not permitted to silence those who wish to say it.
       This is the best model for voluntary school prayer. 
     Students who wish could rotate and take turns just as they do 
     on everything else. It is something simple, just as it was in 
     America's schools for almost 200 years, except that 
     government would not be permitted to select a prayer for 
     students, nor require joining in any prayer.


                    myth #4: here comes the witches

       ``Aren't we just inviting cults, witches and Satanists to 
     come into public schools and influence our children?''
       This is a scare tactic, because there's no real threat of 
     this type. It never surfaced when school prayer was common, 
     and any such effort would remain exceedingly rare. Would we 
     silence millions of prayers from fear that the privilege 
     would be abused on extremely rare occasions--if even then?
       Just as free speech does not give a student the right to 
     interrupt and change topics in class, the RFA does not permit 
     disruptions. It would not require schools to bring in outside 
     groups. Students who belong to highly unpopular groups might 
     indeed want an equal chance to offer a prayer on extremely 
     rare occasions at some school, but this is no reason to 
     censor all prayers across America. It is extremely rare that 
     we hear a truly offensive prayer; it would remain that way .
       Those who object strongly may always leave rather than 
     listen to somebody's free speech, but equal treatment does 
     not permit us to silence someone simply because we disagree, 
     even in a public place. We only need to apply normal rules of 
     orderly behavior, just as free speech does not allow someone 
     to yell, ``Fire'' in a crowded theater. Those standards would 
     remain in constitutional law.
       Far-fetched versions of this argument claim the amendment 
     would protect animal sacrifice and other hideous practices, 
     which it absolutely would not do. The 1st Amendment yields 
     when necessary to avoid, as the courts express it, 
     ``substantial threat to public safety, peace and order.'' The 
     courts maintain that free exercise of religion is not a 
     license to disregard general laws on behavior, such as those 
     against advocating the violent overthrow of the government, 
     polygamy, the use of illegal drugs, and prostitution. Those 
     types of protections would continue under the Religious 
     Freedom Amendment.


               myth #5: religion belongs only in the home

       ``Children should be taught religion at home and church, 
     not at school they have plenty of time and opportunity to 
     pray in other places; they don't need to do so at school.''
       The FEA is not about teaching religious doctrine, but about 
     permitting people to keep their faith as a normal part of 
     everyday life. If we have freedom of religion only when we 
     are at home or at church, we do not have true freedom of 
     religion. We would never give up the right to free speech 
     except at home, church, or some other limited places.
       This notion also ignores the rights of the majority, who 
     are required to be in school (for the biggest part of their 
     day), yet are forced to leave their normal religious 
     expressions behind while they are there. As Justice Potter 
     Stewart noted in his dissent in Abington v. Schemp (1963), 
     ``a compulsory state educational system so structures a 
     child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an 
     impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an 
     artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this 
     light, permission for such exercises for those who want them 
     is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the 
     matter of religion.'' The real ``captive audience'' is the 
     majority whose right to pray together is being suppressed!


                      myth #6: This Is About Money

       ``This is about money, not about prayer or religion. The 
     federal treasury should not be funding churches and religious 
     groups, or vouchers for church schools.''
       The amendment does not permit public funding of actual 
     religious activity. We have a long history, however, of 
     cooperative efforts for the common good, and religious groups 
     have a solid established role, which is now being attacked. 
     Students attending church colleges and universities already 
     qualify for GI Bill benefits and student loans, and they 
     should. The Congressional Research Service reported last year 
     on 51 federal statutes and regulations that disqualify 
     religious organizations or adherents from neutral 
     participation in generalized government programs!
       This discrimination needs correction, especially since 
     faith-based charities have a better record of success than 
     most in helping people recover from poverty, drug or alcohol 
     abuse, or other problems.
       When the Murrah Federal Building was bombed in Oklahoma 
     City in April 1995, churches suffered some of the heaviest 
     damage. Attorneys for the federal government were ready to 
     deny them the same disaster assistance every other building 
     received. It took congressional action to assure equal and 
     fair treatment for church buildings.


                Myth #7: Real Problem But Wrong Solution

       ``The problem is real, but the solution is wrong. Let's 
     tell the Supreme Court we don't recognize its authority to 
     make these horrible rulings.''
       We are challenged to be an orderly society that believes in 
     honoring the law. Some questions whether we took a wrong turn 
     two hundred years ago, when the Supreme Court became the de 
     facto arbiter of interpreting the Constitution. It's a 
     practical impossibility now to persuade the country 
     otherwise. Yet the people are ready to support a 
     constitutional amendment on school prayer; 36 years of public 
     opinion polls show support from 75% and more of the public.
       If we teach our children to ignore what the courts say, 
     then we are not teaching respect for the law; we would be 
     teaching anarchy, whether we thought so or not. Everyone 
     could ignore whatever court rulings they found inconvenient, 
     whether on religion, crime, drugs, or any other issue.
       We've tried every other approach, and are left with a 
     constitutional amendment as the only legitimate remedy. Our 
     Founding Fathers foresaw possible problems, and so created a 
     mechanism for amending the Constitution. It was used for an 
     anti-slavery amendment after the Dred Scott decision, and 
     it's the mechanism being followed by the Religious Freedom 
     Amendment.
       Some suggest that Article III should be used, and that 
     Congress can and should altogether remove federal court 
     jurisdiction over selected topics. This is not just mistaken; 
     it's dangerous. If Congress can bar the Supreme Court from 
     taking cases in the freedom of religion, they can also be 
     barred from ruling on other issues found in the Constitution 
     and the Bill of Rights: There would be no way to halt an act 
     of Congress that restricted free speech, or freedom to 
     assemble, or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to 
     be compensated if government takes our property, or the right 
     to a jury trial, or any other constitutional right. Congress 
     would be enabled to amend and attack our constitution rights, 
     and we would have no remedy for it. We already have a problem 
     because courts are usurping authority; this

[[Page H3090]]

     supposed `remedy' would enable Congress to unsurp authority.
       The Religious Freedom Amendment took nearly three years to 
     draft, building widespread support among people of many 
     faiths, both Christian and non-Christian. It is the product 
     of painstaking and prayerful work. Now it's being assailed by 
     demagogues who prey upon those who aren't informed about what 
     the courts have done, or about how the Religious Freedom 
     Amendment can repair that damage.
       One quick way to inform yourself, and your friends, is 
     through the Religious Freedom Amendment website, at religious 
     freedom.house.gov. There, you can find both simple and 
     detailed information, and download handouts to share with 
     others.
       Armed with facts and with prayer, supporters of religious 
     freedom can successfully uphold their principles, and build 
     more support for the RFA. It's vital that each and every 
     member of Congress be overwhelmed by citizen's calls and 
     letters, and that newspapers, talk radio and other media be 
     swamped as well.
       The American people have never accepted the Supreme Court's 
     extra burdens levied against voluntary school prayer and 
     against religious freedom during the past 36 years. For the 
     first time, an amendment to remedy this has passed a House 
     subcommittee and committee to come to the floor (the 1971 
     vote occurred only because of a petition by a majority of 
     members of the House).
       We have the opportunity of a lifetime, and we must be 
     informed and ready to protect our religious freedom, and to 
     reverse the attacks that threaten it.

                          ____________________