[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11933-S11935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         IN DEFENSE OF CHURCHES

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, recent comments by a political figure have 
unfairly and, I think, unjustly castigated American churches and 
millions of American church-goers as ``. . . a sham and a crutch for 
weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. [meaning organized 
religion] tells people to go out and stick their noses in other 
people's business.'' Now these comments are being defended as the kind 
of outspoken honesty that people really seek in a politician. While I 
am totally in favor of greater candor from politicians, particularly in 
these days of poll-driven and consultant-drafted mealy-mouthed pap 
masquerading as ``vision,'' I am emphatically not in favor of rudeness. 
There is far too much rude and divisive talk in this Nation these days, 
and it only exacerbates the kind of climate that encourages acts of 
violence against anyone who is different or any organization that is 
not mainstream--or maybe even if it is mainstream, as churches are 
still mainstream, at least in my part of the world. We cannot and 
should not let this kind of meanness be excused in the name of honesty 
and candor.
  I do not question anyone's right to voice his opinion, whether I 
agree with it or not, but I also do not believe it is necessary to 
demean or belittle or denigrate anyone in the process of voicing an 
opinion. I am pleased to see that I am not alone in my outrage, but 
that many people have expressed similar feelings. I hope that we can 
all learn a lesson from this episode.
  All of us ask for guidance from those we trust whenever we are faced 
with difficult problems. We ask our parents, or our wives, we ask our 
husbands, or our friends. So what is wrong with seeking the advice of 
someone who has

[[Page S11934]]

seen more troubles and received more training in counseling than 
ourselves--someone who has a calling, a passion, for this role? Someone 
such as our pastor or priest or minister? Or what is wrong with asking 
the One who knows and shares all of our troubles--in asking the Creator 
for guidance and support? What is wrong with asking ourselves, ``What 
would Jesus do?'' There is nothing wrong with using the spiritual 
guidance provided to us from God and His Son, and tested over nearly 
2,000 years of human experience. It is not weak-minded. It is not 
sheep-like to grow up within a framework of faith and to celebrate the 
rituals of the church. It does not mean that one has a weakness and 
needs organized religion to ``strengthen oneself.''
  Churches across this Nation provide millions of strong people with 
spiritual, emotional, and physical support. People who are active in 
their church may literally count their blessings when disaster strikes 
them. Be it the sudden loss of a loved one, a fire, a flood, that 
person will find himself surrounded with caring friends and helping 
hands. Insurance may provide a sense of financial security, but no 
matter whose good hands your insurance may be in, an insurance company 
cannot hold your hand and offer a shoulder to lean on while your home 
is reduced to smoky ruins or washed downstream in a flood. A pastor, a 
priest, a minister, or friend from your church can do so, and will do 
so. And people in your church will offer you the clothes off of their 
backs, or a place to stay, or food to eat when you are hungry, or help 
in many other small ways that are a balm on a hurting soul. Instead of 
facing your loss alone, help arrives in battalions.
  Churches have become, in many ways, the new centers of community in 
America. We live in ever-expanding suburbs. We spend long hours each 
day commuting to jobs miles from our homes. Our children ride buses to 
distant schools that may combine many neighborhoods or even many 
communities.
  We may rarely see our neighbor, or may know the neighbor only to nod 
at as we back our cars out of our driveways. Air conditioning, 
television, and other amenities have taken the place of sitting on the 
front porch with a glass of lemonade. Now, if we are outside, we are 
likely on a deck in the back yard, hidden by a fence or a hedge from 
the prying eyes of our unseen neighbors. But in church on Sunday, one 
is encouraged to shake a neighbor's hand. One is asked to pray for 
neighbors who are sick or in distress. And one hears the word of God--a 
Name that is above all other names--and participates in the observance 
of the liturgy that binds all of us in a seamless lineage to the 
heritage of man.
  Churches are not for the weak-minded, Mr. President. They are for the 
strong. They are for people who are not afraid to seek guidance, not 
afraid to show charity, not afraid to practice kindness. Tolerance for 
the beliefs of others is one of the cornerstones on which this Nation 
is founded, and we in public life would be well-advised to remember 
that.
  Let me close these remarks, Mr. President, with a passage from George 
Washington's Farewell Address. Mr. President, George Washington, 
commander of the American forces at Valley Forge, was not a weak-minded 
man. George Washington, the first President of the United States--and 
the greatest President of all--was not a weak-minded man. Let's share 
what he had to say about religion. We might even class George 
Washington as a politician.
  Here is what George Washington said. I suggest that all take note.

       Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. 
     In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who 
     should labor to subvert these great pillars of human 
     happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and 
     citizens.

  Let me digress briefly to suggest that all politicians, whether at 
the State or local or national level, take note of what George 
Washington said.

       The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to 
     respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all 
     their connections with private and public felicity. Let it 
     simply be asked, where is the security for property, for 
     reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation 
     desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation 
     in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the 
     supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. 
     Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined 
     education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and 
     experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality 
     can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had no intention to speak on this matter. 
It is purely coincidence--one might even suggest the hand of the 
Almighty--that caused me just a few minutes ago to read a column that 
appeared in the Boston Globe in this particular case, a column that 
picks up on the very theme the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia has addressed this afternoon.
  I will read the column into the Congressional Record. I have rarely 
ever done this, but I found this column so compelling. It corresponds 
very much to the eloquent words of our colleague from West Virginia and 
the compelling words of our first American President, George 
Washington.
  First of all, we live in a wonderful country that allows people to 
express their views, whether they be public people or not. The Governor 
of Minnesota has expressed his views in a national publication that 
comes to the issue of organized religion. He certainly is entitled to 
his views, but I think for those of us who disagree with him and, in 
fact, as public persons, we bear responsibility to challenge those 
words when they are offensive to millions of Americans, be they 
Christians, Jews, Muslims, whether or not people who practice their 
religion in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. There is every reason 
to believe that organized religion, if you will, has contributed 
significantly to the strength and well-being of the Nation.
  This morning, in a column by E.J. Dionne called the Gospel of Jesse 
Ventura, he quotes the statements made by the Governor of Minnesota in 
which the Governor said:

       Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded 
     people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go 
     out and stick their noses in other people's business.

  Now, Mr. President, the column:

       Well, Governor, I have to hand it to you. You've told us 
     over and over that you say what's on your mind and, because 
     of that, you're unlike the average politician. This statement 
     definitely justifies all your self-congratulation.
       Because you're so honest and tough-minded, I figured you 
     wouldn't mind answering a few questions about your comments. 
     I ask them because none of your explanations after the 
     interview helped me understand your meaning. Perhaps I'm 
     thick-headed and you can bring me to your level of 
     enlightenment.
       Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor who led the Southern 
     Christian Leadership Conference. He organized church people 
     to fight for justice. Many who opposed him thought he was 
     sticking his nose into other people's business. In his first 
     major civil rights sermon at the Holt Street Baptist Church 
     in Montgomery, Ala., he declared: ``If we are wrong, Jesus of 
     Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer and never came down to 
     earth! If we are wrong, justice is a lie!''
       Please tell me, Governor, I want to know: Was Martin Luther 
     King Jr. ``weak-minded'' for working through ``organized 
     religion''? While you're at it, were all those civil rights 
     activists, so many motivated by religious faith, ``weak-
     minded'' for risking their lives in the struggle?
       Rabbi Abraham Heschel was a brilliant theologian and wrote 
     about the Hebrew prophets. He was moved by his sense of the 
     prophetic to become a leading ally of King's battle for 
     equality. Was he weak-minded?
       Dietrich Bonhoffer was a German theologian moved by his 
     faith to oppose Hitler. He went to prison and was eventually 
     killed. ``I have discovered,'' he wrote a few weeks before 
     his execution, ``that only by living fully in the world can 
     we learn to have faith.'' Was Dietrich Bonhoffer using his 
     faith as a ``sham and a crutch?''
       The Polish workers of the Solidarity trade union movement, 
     inspired by faith and helped immensely by their ``organized 
     religion,'' faced down the Communist dictatorship in Poland. 
     They risked jail and beatings and helped change the world. 
     Was that weak-minded of them?
       What about those theologians who thought through religious 
     questions and the meaning of life on behalf of all those 
     churchy souls you say need crutches? Were Augustine and 
     Aquinas weak-minded? Were Luther and Calvin? What about 20th-
     century prophets such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Buber? 
     They were towering intellects, I've always thought, but 
     perhaps I'm blind and you can help me see.
       I respect and admire the courage you demonstrated in 
     serving our country as a Navy SEAL. But just out of 
     curiosity: Do you think the military chaplains you met were 
     weak-minded?

[[Page S11935]]

       Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist, has found that 
     ``relationships related to religion'' are clearly the major 
     forces mobilizing volunteers in America. We're talking here 
     about mentors for children, volunteers in homeless programs, 
     those who give comfort at shelters for battered women. Are 
     all these good volunteers just seeking strength in numbers?
       While you were making money wrestling, Mother Teresa was 
     devoting her life to the poor of Calcutta. Maybe you think 
     she would have been better off in the ring with Disco 
     Inferno.
       I don't want to get too personal, but I truly want to know 
     what you're trying to tell us. The nuns who taught me in 
     grade school and the Benedictine monks who taught me in high 
     school devoted the whole of their lives to helping young 
     people learn. Was their dedication to others a sign of 
     weakness? The parish I grew up in was full of parents--my own 
     included--whose religious faith motivated them to build a 
     strong community that nurtured us kids. I guess you're 
     telling me those parents I respected were only seeking 
     strength in numbers.
       Somewhere around 100 million Americans attend religious 
     services in any given week. Sociologists agree we are one of 
     the most religiously observant countries in the world, 
     especially compared to other wealthy nations. Are we a weak-
     minded country?
       In explaining your comments afterward, you said: ``This is 
     Playboy; they want you to be provocative.'' Does that mean 
     you would have said something different to the editors of, 
     say, Christianity Today?
       And, Governor, one last question: Are you tough-minded 
     enough to understand the meaning of the words: ``Your act is 
     wearing thin?''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________