[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9751-H9754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SETTING ASIDE TIME FOR PRAYER OR QUIET REFLECTION ON BEHALF OF OUR
NATION DURING THIS TIME OF STRUGGLE AGAINST INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones) is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to
take just a few moments simply because on November 13 this House
debated a concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 239, and
the House actually passed the resolution on November 15 by a vote of
297 to 125, with one Member voting present.
I would like to read to the House what the resolution said, and then
I want to give the reason why I am on the floor tonight for these few
minutes.
The resolution said, ``Expressing the sense of Congress that schools
in the United States should set aside a sufficient period of time to
allow children to pray for or quietly reflect on behalf of the Nation
during this time of struggle against the forces of internal
terrorism.''
Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit surprised the night of November 13. I
should not say ``disappointed,'' because the House is the people's
House, and all of us who serve here have the privilege to our own
opinions and we can express those opinions. However, on that night,
three Members of the Democratic Party came to speak in opposition of
House Concurrent Resolution 239: the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), all three of whom I have great
respect for; and I acknowledged that night during the debate that I did
have respect for each one as a very fine Member of Congress. We just
disagreed on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
There is absolutely no question about that. That night, the three
Members who were opposed to House Concurrent Resolution 239 mentioned
seven different groups that were opposed to this resolution, one being
the People for the American Way. Well, I was not surprised with that,
quite frankly. The National PTA, I was very surprised about, and I want
to talk about that in just a moment.
The third group to be opposed to this nonbinding resolution but sense
of the Congress that children would have a moment of prayer or a moment
of reflection during this period of war with the terrorists was
Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Quite frankly, I
was not surprised by that one either.
Next was the Interfaith Alliance.
The fifth group opposed to the resolution was the American Jewish
Committee of Washington, D.C.
The sixth group in opposition was Religious Action Center of Reform
Judaism.
Seventh was the Baptist Joint Committee.
I would say that the one I was really disappointed in was the
National PTA, and I am going to read a couple of sentences from their
letter of opposition.
The National PTA, the lady's name, I believe she is the President,
Shirley
[[Page H9752]]
Igo, President of the National PTA, she wrote a note in opposition to
House Concurrent Resolution 239, to, again, the sense of the Congress
encouraging that children during this period of war, and I know a lot
of our children, Mr. Speaker, are confused by what is happening with
terrorism, the murder of so many American people on September 11, the
fact that many of our men and women in uniform over in Afghanistan have
children here in this country. So the Congress felt, and, again, it did
pass it, that children should be encouraged in the schools to have a
moment of prayer or reflection.
But the National PTA, Mrs. Igo, says about the resolution,
``Furthermore, because the legislative intent is clearly to endorse
religious expression, it does not conform with current constitutional
standards.''
Mr. Speaker, that is not what it did. What it said was that the
children of America should have a moment of prayer or a moment of
reflection. But, again, my point is, I am very disappointed in the
National PTA, which is supposed to strengthen families, encourage
education and encourage families to be together. Why they would take
this type of position, I do not know. But, again, I was very surprised
and disappointed that they would.
Mr. Speaker, another group that I really should not be surprised
about is the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. That
is Reverend Barry Lynn, and he and I disagree on a lot of issues, most
of the time, quite frankly.
Let me read one or two sentences from his letter in opposition to
House Concurrent Resolution 239: ``This misguided proposal should not
be endorsed by the House of Representatives.''
Well, I am pleased to tell Mr. Lynn that it was endorsed by the House
of Representatives, 297 to 125.
The second statement he made: ``Mandatory time for classroom prayer
on a specific topic.''
Mr. Speaker, it did not do that. It said that the children should
have a moment of prayer, whatever faith they might be. Jewish,
Catholic, Protestant, or even Muslim, they should have that moment,
which we have seen happen since September 11.
Also he made a couple of other points that I am not going to take the
time to make reference on.
The reason I wanted to come down on the floor again tonight was to
say ``thank you'' to the Members of the House. Many Democrats,
including the leader of the minority party, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt), voted for this resolution.
I want to read for the record a paper from an eighth grader from my
district, a young lady named Rose Ormand, who wrote a paper called ``In
Defense of a Little Prayer.'' Ms. Ormand is in the eighth grade. She
attends E.B. Aycock Middle School in Greenville, North Carolina. I want
to read this in its entirety.
``How would the athletes at your school feel if all athletic
activities were prohibited based on the fact that not all students are
athletic and some students even feel uncomfortable with athletics?
Wouldn't you consider that unjust and absurd? Can you imagine baseball,
a sport considered as American as mom's apple pie, being removed from
schools because a few are offended? Well, as absurd as that might seem,
there is an activity which is even more historically valued than
baseball that is being prohibited in our public schools today. That
activity prohibited today within the walls of our schools is prayer. A
student's right to pray in school in any manner should be upheld and
encouraged. First of all, our country has definitely been founded upon
Christian principles from its very beginning. When we compare the
social and moral climate of the schools when prayer was part of a
regular school day to that of our present day, there is quite a
difference. Finally, if we trace the roots of public education back to
its original purpose, it just doesn't make any sense that our public
school system today is a contradiction. Prayer in our public schools
may very well be an area we need to look at again as it is so much more
important than baseball.
``First of all, our country and its government were clearly built on
Christian principles. The arrival of the pilgrims in the New World
seeking religious freedom was the birth of our great country. In the
Bill of Rights, the First Amendment declares that, `Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.' Every day the United States Senate and House of
Representatives begin their Congressional day with prayer, yet in the
same nation, public school students are not allowed to have prayer.
While the Members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol and
petitioned God almighty for his help after the attack on America,
public school students were not even permitted to join in the National
Day of Prayer declared by the President. It seems to me that students
and teachers alike have to shed their constitutional right of the free
exercise of prayer when they walk through the public school doors.
``Secondly, the social and moral climate when prayer was permitted in
school was surprisingly better than now when prayer is prohibited. The
Regent's prayer, prayed every morning in the classroom, was `Almighty
God, we acknowledge our dependence upon You, and we beg Your blessings
upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.' On June 25, 1962,
the government removed God from public schools and that prayer was
never prayed again. The four parts of the Regent's prayer were God's
blessings on the students, our parents, our teachers and our country,
and they seemed to be the area God's hedge of protections fell. The
first area was the students, and since 1962 teenage homicide rose three
hundred percent. The second area was the parents, and also since 1962
the divorce rate went up fifty-two percent. The SAT scores plummeted,
frustrating the teachers, and the hedge of protection fell from our
country as the very next year our President was killed. A coincidence?
I don't think so. The only way any of these statistics are going to
change will be if prayer is allowed in our school system.
``Some reading this may say that schools are not the place for prayer
because they are institutions for learning. Let me refer you to one of
the founders of public education within our Nation, Benjamin Rush. He
wrote and spoke about educational topics frequently and he believed
that education should work along with the principles of democracy. He
wrote a prodigious essay entitled, `Thoughts Upon the Mode of
Educational Proper in a Republic.' Rush included in his essay that
Christian principles should be taught throughout the student's
education.
{time} 2000
``Funny, isn't it, that now God isn't even allowed where once he was
the main focus? Or maybe it's not so funny after all.
``In conclusion, should students be allowed to pray as part of every
day school life. Since God was the main reason America was founded,
doesn't it make sense that the heritage of this country should
continue? Also, if we had prayer back in the school system, our
schools, homes, and country would be a lot better off. School now is so
different than what it was originally intended to be, and the strength
and quality the schools had then could return only if God was let back
in the school system. If you really believe in the power of prayer,
then call your Congressman and ask for prayer to be returned to public
schools now!''
Mr. Speaker, I read that again because they are the words of an
eighth-grader in my district, and I think she did a great job of
expressing herself and the fact that this Nation is a Nation founded on
Judeo-Christian principles.
Let me make just a couple of other points. Again, I wanted to come to
the floor because I was so disappointed that the National PTA and some
of the other groups that I read about earlier that will be in the
Record were opposed to this nonbinding resolution, the Sense of the
Congress, that the Congress would say to the schools throughout this
Nation and also say to the students that you may have a moment of
prayer or a moment to reflect.
Just a couple of other points and then, Mr. Speaker, I will bring
this to a close.
I found it very interesting that William Raspberry recently wrote an
editorial and the title was ``Good-Faith Arguments for School Prayer.''
Now, this was in The Washington Post on November 26 of the year 2001,
this year. Mr. Raspberry quotes Kevin J. Hasson, President of the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, I will use these quotes
[[Page H9753]]
very briefly. They are short and to the point. Hasson is responding to
Chancellor Harold O. Levy's decision for New York schools to
accommodate the religious exercise of Muslim students during Ramadan.
Hasson says, ``A public school system that pretends to have a
comprehensive education but resolutely says nothing about religion for
12 years is not comprehensive at all. Indeed, it sends a powerful
message to our children that religion is at best an optional aspect of
their human nature and, in doing so, it lies about who and what we are.
When a public school sets aside space for children who wish to pray, it
sends the opposite message: that faith is a natural part of life.''
``But doesn't Levy's action violate the separation clause of the
first amendment? Not as Hasson sees it. The framers of the amendment
never intended to hobble religion,'' he argues, ``only to avoid the
establishment of a particular religion. The people who wrote the Bill
of Rights hired a congressional chaplain,'' he said. ``A few days after
writing his famous letter on the wall of separation, Thomas Jefferson
attended Sunday churches in the House of Representatives.''
Mr. Speaker, I want to include Mr. Raspberry's entire editorial for
the Record, along with the letter from Rose Ormand.
In Defense of a Little Prayer
(By Rose Ormond, Persuasive Hall 4)
How would the athletes at your school feel if all athletic
activities were prohibited based upon the fact that not all
students are athletic and some students even feel
uncomfortable with athletics? Wouldn't you consider that
unjust and absurd? Can you imagine baseball, a sport
considered as American as mom's apple pie, being removed from
schools because a few are offended? Well as absurd as that
may seem, there is an activity which is ever more
historically valued than baseball that is being prohibited in
our public schools today. That activity prohibited today
within the walls of our schools is prayer. A student's right
to pray in school, in any manner, should be upheld and
encouraged. First of all, our country has definitely been
founded upon Christian principles from its very beginning.
When we compare the social and moral climate of the schools
when prayer was a part of a regular school day to that of our
present day, there is quite a difference. Finally, if we
trace the roots of public education back to its original
purpose, it just doesn't make sense that our public school
system today is a contradiction. Prayer in our public schools
may very well be an area we need to look at again as it is so
more important than baseball!
First of all, our country and its government were clearly
built on Christian principles. The arrival of the pilgrims in
the New World seeking religious freedom was the birth of our
great country. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment
declares that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof . . .''. Everyday the U.S. Senate and the House of
Representatives begin their congressional day with prayer
yet, in the same nation, public school students are not
allowed to have prayer. While the members of Congress stood
on the steps of the capital and petitioned God Almighty for
His help after the ``Attack on America,'' public school
students were not even permitted to join in on the National
Day of Prayer declared by the President. It seems to me that
students and teachers alike have to shed their constitutional
right of the free exercise of prayer when they walk through
the public school doors.
Secondly, the social and moral climate when prayer was
permitted in schools was surprisingly better than now, when
prayer is prohibited. The Regent's prayer, prayed every
morning in the classroom was ``Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon You, and we beg Your blessings upon us,
our parents, our teachers, and our country.'' On June 25,
1962 the government removed God from public schools and that
prayer was never prayed again. The four parts of the Regent's
prayer were God's blessings on the students, our parents, our
teachers, and our country and they seem to be the areas God's
hedge of protections fell. The first area was the students,
and since 1962 teenage homicide rose three hundred percent.
The second area was the parents, and also since 1962 the
divorce rate went up fifty-two percent. The SAT scores
plummeted frustrating the teachers, and the hedge of
protection fell from our country as the very next year our
president was killed. Coincidence? I don't think so! The only
way any of these statistics are going to change will be if
prayer is allowed in our school system.
Some reading this may say, that schools are not the place
for prayer because they are only institutions for learning.
Let me refer you to one of the founders of public education
within our nation, Benjamin Rush. He wrote and spoke about
educational topics frequently, and he believed that education
should work along with the principles of democracy. He wrote
a prodigious essay entitled, ``Thoughts Upon the Mode of
Education Proper in a Republic.'' Rush included in his essay
that Christian principles should be taught throughout the
student's education. Funny isn't it that now God isn't even
allowed where once He was the main focus? Or maybe it's not
so funny after all.
In conclusion, students should be allowed to pray as part
of everyday school life. Since God was the main reason
America was founded, doesn't it make sense that the heritage
of this country should continue? Also, if we had prayer back
in the school system, our schools, homes, and country would
be a lot better off. School now is so different than what it
was originally intended to be, and the strength and quality
the schools had then could return only if God was let back in
the school system. If you really believe in the power of
prayer, then call your state Congressman and ask for prayer
to be returned to public schools now!
Good-Faith Argument for School Prayer
(By William Raspberry)
One of the arguments against prayer in public schools has
been that it opens the door for religious zealots to instill
their version of religion into the minds of vulnerable
children. So wouldn't it be ironic if the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks launched by the world's most zealous theocrats wound
up helping the advocates of school prayer?
It's easy to imagine the possibility. No matter the
country's general lukewarmness about things religious,
Americans have been praying all over the place since the
attacks: in Yankee Stadium, in special prayer rallies
organized by members of Congress, in parks and playgrounds
and, yes, in public schools. And there's been hardly a peep
of objection.
And not only that: The New York City public schools have
moved to accommodate the religious exercise of Muslim
students during Ramadan. What makes this significant is that
no one can argue that Chancellor Harold O. Levy's
accommodation amounts to a constitutionally impermissible
``establishment of religion.''-Is this a watershed in the
church-state wars?
Kevin J. Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty, hopes so. At the very least, he says, it may get us
thinking rationally about the place of religion in public
life.
``Every culture, our included, has religious elements,'' he
told me last week. ``And that's because every culture worthy
of the name reflects human nature in all its richness--and
does so publicly. We don't live the most significant aspects
of our lives in private. We don't smuggle babies home from
the maternity ward. We don't usually elope in dead of night
or furtively bury our dead. Why should expressions of belief
be different?''
But what of the coercive effect of religion in public
places--and particularly in public places for children?
The answer, says Hasson, whose organization has defended
religious expression on the part of a huge range of faiths,
is ``not to blanket this facet of our humanity under a layer
of secularism but to let a thousand flowers bloom.'' That's
why he likes the New York City accommodation of Muslim
students.
``A public school system that pretends to have a
comprehensive education but resolutely says nothing about
religion for 12 years is not comprehensive at all. Indeed, it
sends a powerful message to our children that religion is at
best an optional aspect of their human nature--and in doing
so, it lies about who and what we are. When a public school
sets aside space for children who wish to pray, it sends the
opposite message: that faith is a natural part of life. Levy
wasn't pushing Islam; he was sending a message of respect.''
But doesn't Levy's action violate the separation clause of
the First Amendment? Not as Hasson sees it. The Framers of
the amendment never intended to hobble religion, he argues--
only to avoid the establishment of a particular religion.
``The people who wrote the Bill of Rights hired a
congressional chaplain,'' he said. ``A few days after writing
his famous letter on the wall of separation, Thomas Jefferson
attended Sunday church services in the House of
Representatives.''
But surely Hasson will acknowledge the Taliban stand as
incontrovertible evidence of what happens when true believers
take over public places. These fundamentalists are so certain
they know the will of God that they see themselves as
entitled--indeed as compelled--to root out nonbelievers as
the enemies of God. And not all the fundamentalists are
Muslims or ``over there.''
It's a matter to which the lawyer obviously has given some
though. ``The religious fundamentalists and the secular
fundamentalists make the same mistake,'' he says. ``They
separate truth from freedom. For Osama bin Laden, freedom
must be sacrificed for the sake of truth. For our secular
fundamentalists, any claims of truth must be abandoned in the
interest of freedom.
``Both are wrong, and I think a few more people may be
starting to see it.''
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, now as I begin my closing
in the next couple of minutes, let me say to those groups that were
opposed to the resolution that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
will be offering legislation that will be binding, if it should pass,
and I intend to support him. I know many Members on the floor tonight,
including the Speaker pro tempore, as well as the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who will
[[Page H9754]]
be speaking shortly, will be supporting the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook).
Mr. Speaker, prior to 1962, we had prayer in this Nation. I think the
children of this country, and since September 11, I think there have
been more adults in the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, than
there have been in a long, long time. Again, for these groups that are
supposed to help educate our children like the National PTA, I was very
disappointed that they would oppose a resolution that was only the
sense of the Congress. When governors, when the President, when other
leaders of State and local and national government are asking people to
pray for America and to pray for our men and women in uniform, I just
felt like I needed to come to the floor and say ``thank you'' to those
who voted for this resolution on November 15. Again, it passed with
297, only 125 in opposition. They are the kind of messages, Mr.
Speaker, in my opinion, we need to be sending to the American people,
because every survey I have seen over the last 2 years, better than 70
percent of the American people, say they would like to see prayer
returned to the school systems of America.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Georgia will be
speaking shortly and I would like to help him if he would like for me
to do so.
Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, stay on the floor and yield any
remaining time I might have. I think I might have had an hour, is that
correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Michigan). The gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) had 30 minutes, of which he had
approximately 13 minutes remaining. The balance of the Majority
Leader's hour can be controlled by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston).
____________________