[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9296-H9301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2145
                   ``SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us are gathered here in 
the hall of the House in a legislative body that represents the freedom 
that we know and love in America to discuss what our Founding Fathers 
believed about the First Amendment, about the issue of religious 
liberty, about the freedom of religion, about the interaction of 
religion in public life. We are talking tonight about the First 
Amendment, not the Second Amendment, not the Tenth Amendment, the 16th, 
not the 26th, the First Amendment, without which our Constitution would 
not have been ratified.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said by people of all political 
stripes and ideologies about the role of religion in public life and 
the extent to which the two should intersect, if at all.
  Lately, with the increased discussion of issues like opportunity 
scholarships for children to attend religious educational institutions, 
about Government contracting with faith-based institutions, and even 
about the debate on the Ten Commandments being posted on public 
property, we have heard the phrase ``separation of church and state'' 
time and time again.

[[Page H9297]]

  Joining me tonight to examine this phrase, as well as the issue of 
public religious expression and what our First Amendment rights entail, 
are several Members from across this great Nation. I am pleased to be 
joined tonight by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Each of 
these Members will examine the words and the intent of our Founding 
Fathers.
  I would like to begin by examining the words and works of one of our 
most quoted Founders, Thomas Jefferson, who actually coined the phrase 
``separation of church and state'' but in a way much different than 
what present day lore seems to suggest.
  ``Separation of church and state'' is the phrase which today seems to 
guide the debates in this chamber over public religious expressions. 
While Thomas Jefferson popularized that phrase, most of those who so 
quickly invoke Thomas Jefferson and his phrase seem to know almost 
nothing of the circumstances which led to his use of that phrase or 
even of Jefferson's own meaning for the phrase ``separation of church 
and state.''
  Interestingly enough, the same Members in this chamber who have been 
using Jefferson's phrase to oppose the constitutionally guaranteed free 
exercise of religion have also been complaining that this body should 
do more with education, and I am starting to agree with them. Those who 
use this phrase certainly do need some more education about the origin 
and the meaning of this phrase.
  The phrase ``separation of church and state'' appeared in an exchange 
of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist 
Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The election of President 
Jefferson, America's first anti-Federalist President, elated many 
Baptists of that day since that denomination was, by and large, 
strongly anti-Federalist.
  From the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of 
the Federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists often found 
themselves suffering from the centralization of power. And now having a 
President who advocated clear limits on the centralization of 
government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson on November 7, 
1801, congratulating him but also expressing their grave concern over 
the entire concept of the First Amendment.
  That the Constitution even contained a guarantee for the free 
exercise of religion suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right 
to religious expression had become a government-given rather than a 
God-given, or inalienable right. They feared that the Government might 
some day believe that it had constitutional authority to regulate the 
free exercise of religion.
  Jefferson understood their concern. It was also his own. He believed, 
along with the other Founders, that the only thing the First Amendment 
prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national denomination. He 
explained this to fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence 
Benjamin Rush, telling him: ``The Constitution secured the freedom of 
religion. The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an 
establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United 
States, especially the Episcopalians and the Congregationalists. Our 
countrymen believe that any portion of power confided to me will be 
exerted in opposition to these schemes. And they believe rightly.''
  Jefferson committed himself as President to pursuing what he believed 
to be the purpose of the First Amendment, not allowing any denomination 
to become the Federal or national religion, as had been the case in 
Britain and France and Italy and other nations of that day.
  In fact, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, 8 of the 13 
colonies had state churches. But Jefferson had no intention of allowing 
the Federal Government to limit, to restrict, to regulate, or to 
interfere with public religious practices.
  Therefore, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on 
January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear, the free 
exercise of religion will never be interfered with by the Federal 
Government. He explained: ``Believing with you that man owes account to 
none other for his faith or his worship than to God, I contemplate with 
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which 
declared that their Federal legislature should `make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' 
thus building a wall of separation between church and state.''
  Jefferson's understanding of the wall of separation between church 
and state was that it would keep the Federal Government from inhibiting 
religious expression. This is a fact he repeated in numerous other 
declarations during his presidency.

  For example, in his second inaugural address, he said: ``In matters 
of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the 
Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government.''
  In a letter to Judge Samuel Miller, Jefferson wrote: ``I consider the 
Federal Government as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling 
with religious exercises.''
  Jefferson's phrase on ``separation of church and state'' was used to 
declare his dual conviction that the Federal Government should neither 
establish a national denomination nor hinder its free exercise of 
religion. Yet, is it not interesting that today the Federal Government, 
specifically the Federal courts, now use Jefferson's ``separation'' 
phrase for a purpose exactly opposite of what he intended? They now use 
his phrase to prohibit the free exercise of religion, whether by 
students who want to express their faith, or by judges who want to show 
their belief in the Ten Commandments, or by cemeteries who wish to 
display a cross, or by so many other public religious expressions.
  Jefferson's phrase that so long meant that the Federal Government 
would not prohibit public religious expressions or activities is now 
used to do exactly the opposite of what Jefferson intended. Rather than 
freedom of religion, they now want freedom from religion. Ironic, is it 
not?
  Earlier generations long understood Jefferson's intent for this 
phrase. And unlike today's courts, which only published Jefferson's 
eight-word ``separation'' phrase and earlier courts published 
Jefferson's full letter, if Jefferson's separation phrase is to be used 
today, let its context be clearly given as in previous years.
  Additionally, earlier generations always viewed Jefferson's 
``separation'' phrase as no more than it actually was, a line from a 
personal, private letter written to a specific constituent group. There 
is probably no other instance in American history where eight words 
spoken by a single individual in a private letter, words now clearly 
divorced from their context, have become the sole basis for a national 
policy.
  One further note should be made about the First Amendment and the 
``separation of church and state'' phrase. The Congressional Records 
from June 7 to September 25, 1789, in the 1st Congress record the 
months of discussions and the entire official debates of the 90 
Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. And by the way, 
contrary to popular misconception, Jefferson was not one of those who 
framed the First Amendment, nor its religion clause. He was not even in 
America at the time. He was serving overseas as an American diplomat 
and did not arrive back in America to become George Washington's 
Secretary of State until the month after the Bill of Rights was 
completed.
  Nonetheless, when examining the records, during the congressional 
debates of those who actually were here and who actually did frame the 
First Amendment, not one single one of the 90 framers of the 
Constitution's religion clause ever mentioned the phrase ``separation 
of church and state.''
  If this had been their intent for the First Amendment, as is so 
frequently asserted today, then at least one of those 90 would have 
mentioned that phrase. Not one did.
  Today the phrase ``separation of church and state'' is used to 
accomplish something the author of the phrase never intended. That 
phrase found nowhere in the Constitution is now used to prohibit what 
is actually guaranteed by the Constitution, the free exercise of 
religion.
  It is time to go back to what the Constitution actually says rather 
than

[[Page H9298]]

to what some opponents of religion wish that it said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I think he makes some very excellent points on his discussion about 
separation of church and state, and I would like to expound on that 
just a bit.
  In several measures recently debated within this chamber, the topic 
of protecting traditional religious expressions was made. In each case 
opponents were quick to claim that such protections would violate the 
First Amendment's separation of church and state.
  Interestingly, the First Amendment's religion clause states: 
``Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of reference 
list or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  Despite what many claim, the phrase ``separation of church and 
state'' appears nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, one judge 
recently commented: ``So much has been written in recent years to a 
wall of separation between church and state that one would almost think 
at times that it would be found somewhere in our Constitution.''
  And Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart also observed: ``The 
metaphor of the `wall of separation' is a phrase nowhere to be found in 
the Constitution.''
  And current Chief Justice William Rehnquist also noted: ``The 
greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion 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. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.''
  The phrase ``separation of church and state'' was given in a private 
letter in 1802 from President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of 
Danbury, Connecticut, to reassure them that their free exercise of 
religion would never be infringed on by the Federal Government.
  Now that phrase means exactly the opposite of what Jefferson 
intended. In fact, the phrase ``separation of church and state'' has 
recently become a Federal hunting license against traditional religion 
in this country.
  For example, in Texas a judge struck down a song which was sung 
during a voluntary extracurricular institute activity because the 
Congress had promoted values such as honesty, truth, courage, and faith 
in the form of a prayer.
  In Virginia, a student told to write her autobiography in her English 
class was forced to change her own life story because in her 
autobiography she had talked about how important religion was in her 
life.
  In Minnesota, it was ruled that even when artwork is a historical 
classic, it may not be predominantly displayed in schools if it depicts 
something religious.
  In Pennsylvania, because a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words 
from the Bible in the courtroom, a statement which lasted actually less 
than 5 seconds, a jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of 
brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death.
  In Ohio, courts ruled that it was unconstitutional for a board of 
education to use or refer to the word ``God'' in its official writings.
  In California, a judge told a public cemetery that it was 
unconstitutional to have a planter in the shape of a cross, for if 
someone were to view that cross, it could cause emotional distress and 
thus constitute an injury-in-fact.
  In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible 
silently during free time or even to open his Bible at school.

                              {time}  2200

  In Alaska, schools were prohibited from using the word ``Christmas'' 
at school, from exchanging Christmas cards or presents, or from 
displaying anything with the word ``Christmas'' on it because it 
contained the word ``Christ.''
  In Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Illinois, courts told cities 
that when they compose their city seals, seals with numerous symbols 
that represent the diverse aspects of the community, such as industry, 
commerce, history and schools, that not even one of those symbols can 
acknowledge the presence of religion within the community, even if the 
name of the city is religious, or if the city was founded for a 
religious purpose.
  In South Dakota, a judge ruled that a kindergarten class may not even 
ask the question of whose birthday is celebrated at Christmas.
  In Texas, a high ranking official from the national drug czar's 
office who regularly conducts public school anti-drug rallies was 
prohibited from doing so because even though he was an anti-drug 
expert, he was also a minister and thus was disqualified from 
delivering his secular anti-drug message.
  In Oregon, it was ruled that it is unconstitutional for a war 
memorial to be erected in the shape of a cross.
  In Michigan, courts said that if a student prays over his lunch, it 
is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.
  Although States imprint thousands of special-order custom license 
plates, which I am sure everyone has seen driving down the highway, for 
individual citizens each year, the State of Oregon refused to print the 
word ``PRAY,'' the State of Virginia refused to print ``GOD 4 US,'' and 
the State of Utah refused to print ``THANK GOD,'' claiming that such 
customized license plates which were of course made at the request of 
the individual purchasing them, violated the ``separation of church and 
state.''
  There are scores of other examples. They are all based on a 
nonconstitutional phrase. And all of this occurs despite the first 
amendment's explicit guarantee for the free exercise of religion. This 
is ridiculous. It has gone too far, Mr. Speaker.
  It appears that every conceivable effort is being made to hide 
religion as if it were something sinister and pernicious, to banish it 
from the public view as if it were monstrous and diabolic, to punish 
those who publicly pursue it as if they were sinister threats to our 
society, to put them under house arrest and demand that they not 
practice their beliefs outside their home or places of worship.
  This body should not aid and should not abet the hostility against 
people of faith and against traditional expressions of faith, and no 
Member of this body should be party to confusing the clear, self-
evident wording of the Constitution or misleading the American public 
by claiming the first amendment says something that it does not.
  The first amendment says only that ``Congress shall make no law 
respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof.'' It says nothing about separation of church and state. We 
should get back to upholding what the Constitution actually says, not 
upholding what some people wish that it said. It is time for reliance 
on the separation rhetoric to diminish and for reliance on actual 
constitutional wording to increase.
  Now, of course, none of us in this Chamber desire that we pick one 
particular denomination to be chosen for the United States. However, 
this Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that is just 
a part of our history. And at the same time all of us in this Chamber, 
every Member of this body, and I think every Member of this country, 
welcomes with open arms people of all faiths into these United States.
  Mr. PITTS. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
highlighting the magnitude, the nature of the problem in this country. 
As he mentioned, the court case in Pennsylvania, I remember very well a 
few years ago. It was in the Supreme Court chamber where this lawyer, 
referred to a painting which was behind the justices on the wall, a 
painting of the Ten Commandments and he said, ``As the Bible says, 
`Thou shall not kill' '' and then he went on with his arguments. And 
for making that statement, that conviction of that murderer who 
murdered that elderly person was overturned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here tonight, my 
colleagues and I, to destroy a number of myths, myths that abound in 
this country, myths that have done enormous damage to the framework of 
the Constitution and to the moral fabric of the Nation, as a matter of 
fact.
  In recent debates in this Chamber over the juvenile justice bill, the 
bill of the display of the Ten Commandments, and the resolution for a 
day of prayer

[[Page H9299]]

and fasting, the topic of religion was raised. In each case, Members of 
this Chamber who are opponents of such religious expressions arose to 
decry the measures, claiming that for Congress to support such measures 
was a violation of the first amendment's religious clause.

  Their arguments reflect a major misunderstanding of the first 
amendment. Much of this misunderstanding centers around the often used, 
and often abused, phrase ``separation of church and state.'' So often 
have we been told that separation of church and state is the mandate of 
the first amendment that polls now show a majority of Americans believe 
this phrase actually appears in the first amendment. It does not. In 
fact, not only does this phrase ``separation of church and state'' 
appear nowhere in the first amendment, it appears nowhere in the 
Constitution.
  What the first amendment does say about religion actually is very 
short and self-explanatory. The first amendment simply states, and I 
quote, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  Those words are not difficult to understand. They are, in fact, plain 
English. Nevertheless, some Members among us and some members of the 
court have placed some strange and obscure meanings on these very plain 
words. For example, how can the phrase ``Congress shall make no law'' 
be interpreted to mean that an individual student cannot offer a 
graduation prayer? That is, how does ``student'' mean the same thing as 
``Congress''? Or how does ``saying a prayer'' mean the same thing as 
``making a law?'' Yet this is what a number of opponents of public 
religious expression now claim the first amendment prohibits.
  Similarly, apparently coming under the prohibition that ``Congress 
shall make no law'' is a city council's decision about what goes on its 
city seal, or a judge's decision to post the Ten Commandments, or the 
display of a cross within a local community cemetery, or participation 
in a faith-based drug rehabilitation program in an inner city. It is 
absurd to claim that the word ``Congress'' in the first amendment now 
means individual students, local communities, school boards, or city 
councils.
  Have we really lost our ability to understand simple words? Will our 
constitutional interpretation be guided by a phrase which appears 
nowhere in the Constitution? Yet those who wish to rewrite the first 
amendment also tell us that the phrase ``separation of church and 
state'' reflects the intent of those who framed the first amendment. To 
know if this is true, all we need to do is check the congressional 
records, readily accessible to us in this very building, or to citizens 
in their public libraries.
  We can read the entire debate surrounding the framing of the first 
amendment occurring from June 7 to September 25, 1789. Over those 
months, 90 Founding Fathers in the first Congress debated and produced 
the first amendment. Those records make one thing very clear: In months 
of recorded decisions over the first amendment, not one single one of 
the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution's religious clause 
ever mentioned the phrase ``separation of church and state.'' It does 
seem that if this had been their intent, that at least one of them 
would have said something about it. Not one did. Not even one.
  So, then, what was their intent? Again, the congressional records 
make it clear. In fact, James Madison's proposed wording speaks volumes 
about intent. James Madison recommended that the first amendment say, 
``The civil rights of one shall not be abridged on account of religious 
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.''
  Madison, like the others, wanted to make sure that the Federal 
Congress could not establish a national religion. Notice, too, how 
subsequent discussions confirm this. For example, the congressional 
records for August 15, 1789 report:
  ``Mr. Peter Sylvester of New York feared the first amendment might be 
thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. The state 
seemed to entertain an opinion that it enabled Congress to establish a 
national religion. Mr. Madison thought if the word `national' was 
inserted before `religion,' it would point the amendment directly to 
the object it was intended to prevent.''
  The records are clear. The purpose of the first amendment was only to 
prevent the establishment of a national denomination by the Federal 
Congress. The first amendment was never intended to stifle public 
religious expression, nor was it intended to prevent this body from 
encouraging religion in general. Only in recent years has the meaning 
of the first amendment begun to change in the hands of activists who 
are intolerant of public religious expressions.
  It is unfortunate that some Members of this body have decided to 
adopt this new religion ``hostile-meaning'' for the first amendment. No 
Member of this body should be part of obfuscating the clear, self-
evident wording of the Constitution or misleading the American public 
by claiming the first amendment says something it does not. We should 
stick with what the first amendment actually says rather than what the 
constitutional revisionists wish that it had said.

  Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for that quote from 
the committee action as the first amendment went through its drafts. 
That truly is very enlightening to consider what the framers said as 
they did the committee debate in drafting the first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the debate this summer over religious 
liberty issues, I was struck by a remark made by a Member opposing the 
free exercise of religion. One amendment to the juvenile justice bill 
here in the House forbids discriminating against people of faith 
involved in juvenile rehabilitation programs. An usual objection was 
made against that amendment, and I quote:
  ``The amendment seeks to incorporate religion into our justice 
system. Both of these entities have distinct places in our society and 
are not to be combined.''
  That is amazing. They believe that if we forbid discrimination 
against people of faith, it somehow unconstitutionally incorporates 
religion into society. Unfortunately, it appears that many in today's 
legal system agree that it is appropriate to discriminate against 
faith.
  For example, in Florida, during a murder trial of a man for the 
brutal slaying of a 4-year-old child, the judge ordered the courthouse 
copy of the Ten Commandments to be covered for fear that if the jurors 
saw the command ``Do not kill,'' they would be prejudiced against the 
defendant.
  In Pennsylvania, because a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words 
from the Bible in the courtroom, a statement that lasted less than 5 
seconds over the course of a multiday trial, the jury's sentence of a 
man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death was 
overturned.
  In Nebraska, a man convicted for the repeated sexual assault and 
sodomization of a 13-year-old child had his sentence overturned because 
a Bible verse had been mentioned in the courtroom.
  That is incredible. Despite the DNA evidence and the eyewitness 
testimony used to convict a murderer and a child molester, the mere 
mention of a religious passage was so egregious that it caused the 
physical evidence to be set aside and the sentences to be overturned. 
The mention of religion in a public civil setting is apparently more 
dangerous than the threat posed by convicted murderers and child 
molesters.
  What is the root of this doctrine that is so hostile to religion? 
According to the left wing in this country, the doctrine finds its 
roots, and I quote, ``in the major precepts that our Nation was founded 
on the separation of church and state.''

                              {time}  2215

  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the origin, the meaning and 
the abuse of the phrase ``separation of church and state,'' and just as 
it is easy to show that our opponents across the aisle are wrong about 
their use of that phrase, it is equally to show how wrong they are 
about their claim that the exclusion of religion from civil justice is 
a major precept on which our Nation was founded.

[[Page H9300]]

  Consider, for example, the words of James Wilson, an original Justice 
of the U.S. Supreme Court, the founder of the first system of legal 
education in America and a signer of both the Constitution and the 
Declaration. Justice Wilson declared, quote:
  ``Human authority must ultimately rest its authority upon the 
authority of that law which is devine. Far from being rivals or 
enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual 
assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other. It is 
preposterous to separate them from each other.''
  Clearly, Constitution signer and original Supreme Court Justice James 
Wilson strongly disagreed with today's left wing, and Constitution 
signer James McHenry also disagreed with him. He declared, quote:
  ``The holy scriptures can alone secure to our courts of justice and 
constitutions of government purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, 
without the bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around 
our institutions.''
  Additional proof that there was no intent to exclude religious 
influences from civil justice is actually provided by the history of 
the Supreme Court. There were six justices of the original Supreme 
Court; three of them had signed the Constitution, and another one of 
them had authored the Federalist Papers. So it is safe to assume that 
those on the original court knew what was constitutional.
  According to the records of the U.S. Supreme Court, a regular 
practice of these original justices was to have a minister come into 
the courtroom, offer a prayer over the jury before it retired for its 
deliberation. Religion in the courtroom and by our Founding Fathers. 
But I thought that our colleagues across the aisle said that the 
exclusion of religion from civil justice was one of our founding 
principles. Well, perhaps the signers of the Constitution just did not 
understand the Constitution.
  No, to the contrary. The problem is that today some people do not 
understand the Constitution.
  One final piece of irrefutable evidence proving that our legal system 
never intended to exclude religious influences is the oath taken in the 
courtroom. Some today argue that the oath has nothing to do with 
religion, but those who gave us our Constitution disagree. For example, 
Constitution signer Rufus King declared:
  ``By the oath which our laws prescribe, we appeal to the supreme 
being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our 
oaths.''
  And Justice James Iredell, placed on the Supreme Court by President 
George Washington, similarly noted an oath is considered a solemn 
appeal to the supreme being for the truth of what is being said by a 
person.
  And Daniel Webster, the great defender of the Constitution who served 
as a Member of this body for a decade, a Member of the other body for 
two decades, declared ``Our system of oath in all our courts by which 
we hold liberty and property and all our rights are founded on a 
religious belief.''
  And in 1854 our own House Committee on the Judiciary declared, quote:
  ``Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of 
religious sentiment without a firm belief that there is a power above 
us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.''
  And Chancellor James Kent, a father of American jurisprudence, a 
famous judge, a legal instructor, taught that an oath was a religious 
solemnity and that to administer an oath was to call in the aid of 
religion.
  Constitution signer George Washington also declared that a courtroom 
oath was inherently religious. As he explained, quote:
  ``Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the 
sense of religious obligation deserts the oath which are the 
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?''
  There are substantial legal authorities, original signers of the 
Constitution, original Justices of the Supreme Court, founders of early 
law schools, authors of early legal text, and they all agree that 
religion was not to be separated from civil justice.
  The claim made by those across the aisle that the exclusion of 
religious influences from the civil arena is one of the Nation's 
founding principles is no more true than their claim that the First 
Amendment says that there is a separation of church and state. The 
First Amendment simply says, and I quote:
  ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  The First Amendment says that we in Congress cannot pass a law to 
establish a national religion or to prohibit religious expression, but 
the First Amendment says nothing about separation of church and state, 
and there is also nothing in the Constitution or in early American 
records which requires legal justice to be hostile to or to exclude 
religious influences.
  So to oppose a measure that prohibits discrimination against people 
of faith and to claim that such an anti- discriminatory measure would 
violate the Constitution is not only a travesty of history and of the 
Constitution, but of the very justice system which some people claim 
they are protecting.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing us together to 
shed light on a fundamental liberty in our Republic, the freedom of 
religion.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for that 
excellent explanation and now yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
putting this special order together tonight. As I listen, this is not 
about setting the Record straight, this is about re-confirming what the 
Record really says.
  This body is properly called the People's House, and since it is 
elected by the people, it offers a fairly good cross-section of 
America. Our Members come from every conceivable professional 
background, from numerous ethnic groups, from rural, suburban and urban 
areas, and we hold views from conservative to ultra-liberal and 
everything in between.
  We seem to represent a cross-section of America on everything except 
religious faith. In fact, on that subject it seems that some Members of 
this body demand that we misrepresent the views of American people. We 
have heard them in a number of our debates in recent weeks objecting to 
any acknowledgment of God and even objecting to permitting citizens to 
choose faith-based programs.
  Ironically, our longstanding constitutional guarantee for a freedom 
of religion has been twisted by some in this body into a demand for a 
freedom from religion. These Members demand that this body represent 
itself in its practical policy as being atheistic, as excluding all 
mention of God. The ridiculous nature of this demand was exposed over a 
century ago by Princeton University President Charles Hodge. He 
explained, and I quote:
  ``Over the process of time thousands have come from among us from 
many religious faiths. All are welcomed, all are admitted to equal 
rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property and to vote 
in every election, made eligible to hold all offices and invested with 
equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as 
they please or not to worship at all if they see fit. No man is 
molested for his religion or his want of religion. No man is required 
to profess any form of faith or to join any religious association. More 
than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. 
The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the 
principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it 
should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God. The 
sufficient answer to all this is that it cannot possibly be done. The 
demands of those who require that religion should be ignored in our 
laws are not only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree 
unjust and tyrannical.''
  Even though a century has passed since Charles Hodge delivered this 
speech, many in this chamber are still making the same unjust and 
tyrannical demands. Although national studies consistently show that 
only 6 to 7 percent of Americans have no belief in God, critics among 
us want to cater solely to the 6 or 7 percent and to sacrifice the 
beliefs of the 93 percent at the feet of the 7. It should not be done.
  During our debates on allowing individual States to choose whether or 
not

[[Page H9301]]

they wish to display the Ten Commandments, many in this body objected 
to those voluntary displays arguing that our policies should reflect 
the religion-free beliefs of the 6 or 7 percent who do not believe in 
God. Fortunately, this body chose otherwise, and during our debates on 
encouraging a day so that people who wished could join together across 
the Nation to humble themselves, fast and corporately pray for national 
reconciliation, again many in this body objected to that, wishing to 
see our policy reflect solely the anti-religious wishes of those in 
this Nation who do not believe in God. Again, fortunately the majority 
of this body chose otherwise, even though we fell short of the 
necessary two-thirds margin for approval.
  Although we continually hear that with government-funded medical care 
there should be citizen choice when it comes to allowing similar 
citizen choice in selecting social service programs or criminal 
rehabilitation programs or educational programs, Members of this body 
insist that faith-based programs must be excluded from their choices. 
Interesting. We encourage participation in religion-free programs, but 
we penalize involvement in faith-based programs. This is simply another 
example of catering to extremists.
  Frankly, despite what some Members of the body may claim, we are not 
required to conduct government as if God did not exist. In the first 
official speech ever delivered by President George Washington, he urged 
us to seek policies which openly acknowledge God. He explained, and I 
quote:
  ``It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act 
my fervent supplications to that almighty being who rules over the 
universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible 
hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United 
States. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious, favorable 
smiles of heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards the 
eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.''
  And in his farewell address 8 years later, he reiterated his policy 
declaring, quote:
  ``Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political 
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. The mere 
politician ought to respect and cherish them. Can it be a good policy 
which does not equally include them?''
  Patrick Henry, one of the leading individuals responsible for the 
Bill of Rights similarly declared:
  ``The great pillars of all government and of social life are virtue, 
morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone 
that renders us invincible.''
  Even Benjamin Franklin reminded the delegates at the Constitutional 
Convention, quote:
  ``All of us have observed frequent instances of a superintending 
Providence in our favor, and have we now forgotten that powerful 
friend, or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? Without his 
convincing aid we shall succeed in this political building no better 
than the builders of Babel, and we ourselves shall become a reproach 
and byword down to future ages.''
  Very simply, it was never intended and never envisioned that this 
body should pursue its policies with the practical denial of the 
existence of God. Yet this is what many in the body are demanding. We 
heard their criticism during discussion on the Ten Commandments bill, 
on the resolution calling for a day of humiliation, prayer and 
reconciliation and on the juvenile justice bill; and not only did they 
criticize these measures, they even had the shameless gall to tell us 
that the Constitution demanded that we show favoritism toward 
nonreligion. They told us that the First Amendment mandate on 
separation of church and state could not be satisfied if we passed 
policies which acknowledge God.

                              {time}  2230

  It is time for those critics to reread the Constitution which they 
swore to uphold. Nowhere does the First Amendment, or, for that matter, 
any part of the Constitution, mention anything about a separation of 
church and state, but it does guarantee in its own words the free 
exercise of religion. Yet some in this body would deny citizens rights 
which do appear in the Constitution because of a phrase which does not.
  It is time for this body to get back to upholding the actual wording 
of the Constitution, rather than the wording of revisionists who would 
reread our Constitution.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for his very informative comments and for reminding us 
of the quotes from our founders, Washington, Franklin and others.
  I want to say a final thank you to all the participating Members 
tonight. It has been a real inspiration to listen to each one of the 
Members as they shared the very words of our founding documents and our 
Founding Fathers regarding the First Amendment.
  As we have listened to these words, it becomes crystal clear that, to 
the extent that the First Amendment addresses the interaction between 
public life and religious belief, it is this: That the only thing the 
First Amendment prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national 
denomination. The freedom of religion, therefore, is to be protected 
from encroachment by the state, by the government, not the other way 
around.
  Mr. Speaker, the words of our founding fathers are many, from 
Washington, to Franklin, to Madison, to Jefferson and others. Each one 
of these men was fully committed to the primary role that religion 
played in public life and in private life, yet without the 
establishment of one particular denomination.
  So, my friends, as we continue to consider the many policies that lie 
before us, like Charitable Choice, like Opportunity Scholarships for 
children who go to religious schools, like government contracting with 
faith-based institutions, even the posting of the Ten Commandments on 
public property, let us do so with the true intention of the framers in 
mind. That intention was to allow religion both to flourish and to 
inform public life, yet still without naming a particular national or 
Federal religion or denomination. That is fully possible. Instead of 
shutting it out and denying even the purely practical solution that it 
offers, let us not be afraid of the good that religion can and does 
bring to public life. Indeed, it has helped to build a great Nation.

                          ____________________