[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 161 (Friday, November 7, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11125-H11130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on October 14, the Supreme

[[Page H11126]]

Court agreed to hear a dispute over the phrase ``one Nation under God'' 
in the Pledge of Allegiance. Make no mistake, this lawsuit is another 
attempt by atheists to exterminate America's religious heritage. 
Michael Newdow is an atheist who wants the government to adopt his 
religious views. He argues that his daughter was, in legal terms, 
injured by having to be exposed to the recitation of the Pledge of 
Allegiance in school. The underlying idea behind Mr. Newdow's efforts 
was expressed perfectly by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. He 
said, ``Man is the measure of all things.'' What this statement means 
is that human beings, not a God or an unchanging moral law, is the 
ultimate source of value.
  The Declaration of Independence tells us differently. The Declaration 
tells us exactly what the ultimate source of our laws and liberties are 
and where they came from. It reads that all men are created equal, 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these 
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  There is a central question in this controversy, whether or not 
public officials in the government itself can acknowledge a higher 
power than themselves. Can the government acknowledge God or must we 
agree that man is the measure of all things?
  The background on this case is interesting. The child involved in the 
present suit is not required to recite the Pledge. Mr. Newdow argues 
that his daughter should not even have to listen to the Pledge. In the 
factual and procedural background section of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 
Mr. Newdow argues his daughter is injured when she is compelled to 
watch and listen as her State-employed teacher in her State-run school 
leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God and 
that ours is one Nation under that God. If Mr. Newdow's daughter is 
injured by listening to the pledge with the words ``under God'' in it, 
what about the other students? In the dissenting opinion of Newdow v. 
U.S., Circuit Judge Fernandez makes the point well.
  He says:
  I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the 
phrases recited in their presence, but then others might not feel good 
if they are omitted.
  This application of logic to Newdow's argument proves that we need 
something more to shed light on the constitutionality of the phrase 
``under God.'' We must also look to the history of the phrase itself. 
By doing so, we can shed light on the legitimacy of recognizing God in 
our government and in our laws.
  To shed light on this controversy, it would be helpful to look at the 
history of the phrase ``under God'' and the words of the people who 
helped write our Constitution.
  The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a 
Massachusetts educator. Bellamy was planning celebrations to mark 
Columbus Day and the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. The 
Pledge emphasized the permanence of union and the liberty of the 
people. The Pledge was written only 27 years after the Civil War. The 
1892 version of the Pledge read, ``I pledge allegiance to my Flag and 
to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with 
liberty and justice for all.''
  Because of large numbers of immigrants, some thought the reference to 
``my Flag'' might encourage immigrants to retain loyalty to their 
former country's flag. And so in 1924, the National Flag Conference 
approved a change in the Pledge. It now in 1924 read, ``I pledge 
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the 
Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and 
justice for all.''
  In 1942, Congress codified the pledge into law when it was added to 
the U.S. Flag Code. This version did not include the words ``under 
God.'' Again it read, ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United 
States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''
  In 1954, Congress inserted the words ``under God'' into the Pledge of 
Allegiance. In 1943, Jehovah's Witnesses filed suit and challenged the 
mandatory recitation of the Pledge.

                              {time}  1315

  The Court ruled that governments should not force students to recite 
the pledge against their will or contrary to their beliefs. Judge 
Fernandez again from the dissenting opinion in Newdow v. Congress. In 
West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett, for example, the 
Supreme Court did not say that the pledge could not be recited in the 
presence of Jehovah Witness children. It merely said that they did not 
have to recite it. That fully protected their constitutional rights by 
precluding the government from trenching upon the sphere of intellect 
and spirit. In the law they concluded the Pledge of Allegiance simply 
stated that standing was a sign of respect for the Nation and its laws. 
Public Law 396 states: ``However, civilians will always show full 
respect to the flag when the Pledge is given by merely standing at 
attention.''
  In conclusion, students are not forced to say the Pledge of 
Allegiance. Reciting the Pledge in the presence of students who object 
to it does not violate the Constitution. Congress's addition of ``under 
God'' was only reference to God during that time. In 1955 by unanimous 
vote, Congress required the U.S. Mint to place the words ``In God We 
Trust'' on all of our currency. And over the Speaker's desk on that 
marble wall are the words ``In God We Trust.'' In 1956 Congress adopts 
``In God We Trust'' as the national motto. Were these enactments by 
Congress isolated? Not at all. The Nation has long publicly declared 
its dependence on divine providence.
  There are references to our dependence on God in earlier American 
history. Lincoln's consecration of the Gettysburg speech, in which he 
said: ``It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the 
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly 
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task 
remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased 
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of 
devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have 
died in vain, that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of 
freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people shall not perish from the earth.''
  What did Lincoln mean by saying ``this Nation under God''? That the 
United States is under the protection of God? That we are also under 
God's judgment, that we must conduct ourselves according to his 
standards of justice? Lincoln said in his second inaugural address: `` 
. . . and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as 
the woe due to those for whom the offense'' of slavery ``came.''
  Lincoln, by declaring our Nation ``under God,'' seems to be echoing a 
man even closer to the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of 
Independence, Thomas Jefferson: ``And can the liberties of a nation be 
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction 
in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That 
they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my 
country when I reflect that God is just, and His justice cannot sleep 
forever . . . '' Thomas Jefferson's wisdom reinforces Mr. Lincoln's 
assertion stated earlier that the Civil War was divine judgment for 
slavery. In that sense America is a Nation under God.
  Why was America being judged by God during the Civil War? Because 
slavery was a violation of the principle of equality proclaimed in the 
Declaration of Independence. Even though slavery was allowed in the 
Constitution, it was still a violation of another of Jefferson's 
principles. In his first inaugural address, Jefferson said: ``All, too, 
will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the 
majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be 
reasonable.'' Was slavery reasonable? No, Jefferson said. ``All eyes 
are opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of 
science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the 
mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a 
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the 
grace of God.''
  Lincoln and Jefferson reinforced each other's arguments, that the 
United States is a Nation under God's judgment and protection, that our 
rights

[[Page H11127]]

come from God and that no violation of our God-given rights can be 
tolerated.
  Can we go back further to see if God is mentioned in any other 
documents around the founding era? Yes. The Declaration of 
Independence. We teach the Declaration of Independence in our schools 
to advance freedom. John Adams said: ``Children should be educated and 
instructed to the principles of freedom.'' The Declaration also teaches 
us about Americans' beliefs about God. The Declaration teaches us four 
things about God: one, He is the author of the laws of nature and 
nature's God; two, he has endowed us with inalienable rights; three, He 
is the supreme judge of the world; and, four, he provides the 
protection of divine providence.
  What happens when the Declaration of Independence is taught in public 
schools? Are they violating the separation of church and State? How 
preposterous. Do schools that teach the Declaration and its description 
of God violate the Constitution? The absurdity of the argument of 
atheists like Mr. Newdow is readily apparent. There are several 
implications in Mr. Newdow's argument, Mr. Speaker. If the Court rules 
the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ``under God'' unconstitutional 
next summer, what will be next? ``God bless America''? Mr. Speaker, 
what would happen if Congress required the recitation of the preamble 
to the Declaration every morning instead of the Pledge? The conclusion 
of the argument atheists make must be the Declaration of Independence 
violates the Constitution.
  We have examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham 
Lincoln. We have examined the Declaration of Independence and the 
Constitution. We have looked at the history of the phrase ``under 
God.'' It is obvious that our government has long declared a dependence 
on God. Acknowledging God as a source of our inalienable rights is what 
makes our rights secure. Our history, our Declaration, our Constitution 
teach us several lessons: that God is the source of our rights, that 
our Nation is under God's judgment and we must act accordingly.

  Mr. Speaker, I am an elected official in the Federal legislature. I 
have mentioned God many times in this speech in the House of 
Representatives. I hope the Supreme Court will not rule I have violated 
the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, the words of the Constitution are very clear, but what 
is not clear is what our Founding Fathers meant by those words, and 
that is why the discussion today of whether the words ``under God'' are 
appropriate in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
  What I would like to do is go back to our Founding Fathers to see 
what they might advise us could they be resurrected and meet with us 
today. If we put in the context of the time the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution, we may be better able to understand 
what they meant by their words. No one disagrees on what the words are, 
but there is a big disagreement on what the words mean.
  Patrick Henry is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, and 
every student in school knows what he said: ``I know not what course 
others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' But 
I will wager, Mr. Speaker, that if any of the listeners go to the 
textbooks in their school, they will find no reference to the context 
in which this statement was made. It was made in a church, St. Johns 
Church in Richmond on March 23, 1775, and here is more of that 
statement. He says: ``An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all 
that is left us, but we shall not fight our battle alone, there is a 
just God that presides over the destinies of nations. That battle, sir, 
is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be 
purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. 
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty 
or give me death.''
  Do my colleagues think Patrick Henry would tell us that it is not 
okay to have the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to 
the flag? Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, in 1776, 
he wrote this: ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that 
this great Nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, 
not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason 
alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship 
here.'' Do my colleagues think he would tell us that it is not okay to 
have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance?
  Benjamin Franklin, who is frequently referred to by modern-day 
educators as a deist, that is, a person who believed that there was a 
God but don't bother praying to Him because He created us and set in 
place certain physical laws and our destiny is going to be determined 
by how we relate ourselves to those laws, let me read what Benjamin 
Franklin said, and then the Members conclude as to whether they think 
he was an atheist or not. These words were uttered in 1887 when he 
arose in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They were 
deadlocked, and it was not certain we would have a Constitution. He 
was, I think, 82 years old, the Governor of Pennsylvania, I think the 
oldest and probably the most respected member of that convention, and 
this is what he said: ``In the days of our contest with Great Britain 
when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for 
divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were 
graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must 
have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our 
favor. To that kind providence, we owe this happy opportunity to 
establish our Nation. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? 
Do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?'' And then these 
words that I think are so powerful: ``I have lived, sir, a long time, 
and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, 
that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the 
ground without His notice, is it probable that a new Nation can rise 
without His aid?'' And then he went on to say that he begged leave to 
move that henceforth they would begin each of their meetings with 
prayer. We still do that, Mr. Speaker. We began our session today with 
prayer.
  Do my colleagues think Benjamin Franklin was a deist, and more 
importantly, do my colleagues think that he would say that it is not 
okay, that it is not appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag?
  Thomas Jefferson, the major architect of the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution, also referred to frequently as a 
deist, and this is what he said: ``I am a real Christian. That is to 
say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our 
whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and I 
hope to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.'' Do my colleagues think that 
Thomas Jefferson, with those convictions, would say that it is not okay 
to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  George Washington, our first President: ``It is impossible to govern 
the world without God and the Bible. Of all of the dispositions and 
habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are 
the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge this 
supposition, that is, the notion or idea, that morality can be 
maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to 
expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious 
principle.''
  In his prayer book, he wrote: ``O eternal and everlasting God, direct 
my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood 
of the lamb, and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily frame me more 
and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy 
fear and dying in Thy favor, I may in Thy appointed time obtain the 
resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, 0 Lord, the 
whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of 
Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.'' What counsel do my colleagues think 
George Washington would give us? Would he tell us that it is not okay, 
that it is not appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag?
  John Adams, our second President, also President of the American 
Bible Society: ``We have no government armed with the power capable of 
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. 
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is 
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' Could John Adams 
possibly have believed that we could not think

[[Page H11128]]

that ``under God'' is appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance to our 
flag?
  John Jay, our first Supreme Court Justice said: ``Providence has 
given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as 
well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select 
and prefer Christians for their rulers.'' Could John Jay, the first 
Supreme Court Justice, have imagined that we would think it 
inappropriate to have ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the 
flag?
  John Quincy Adams, President of the American Bible Society, and he 
said that his Presidency there he valued more than his Presidency of 
this country:

                              {time}  1330

  ``The highest glory of the American Revolution was this. It connected 
in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the 
principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration,'' that is, 
the Declaration of Independence, ``they,'' the fathers, ``were bound by 
the laws of God, which they all acknowledged as their rules of 
conduct.''
  What would John Quincy Adams advise us about the appropriateness of 
the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  And later on in history, Calvin Coolidge, ``America seeks no empire 
built on blood and forces. She cherishes no purpose, save to merit the 
favor of almighty God.''
  He later wrote, ``The foundations of our society and our government 
rests so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult 
to support them if faith in these doctrines would cease to be 
practically universal in our country.''
  Would President Coolidge have believed it inappropriate to have 
``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  Let us turn now to our early Supreme Court. For 160 years, every 
Supreme Court decision in this arena was diametrically opposed to 
Supreme Court decisions from 1947 on.
  In 1947, the Supreme Court did a radical about-face, repudiating the 
precedents of 160 years. They completely reversed their opinions.
  The Supreme Court in 1811, People v. Ruggles, Ruggles had publicly 
slandered the Bible. This is what the Supreme Court said. ``You have 
attacked the Bible, and in attacking the Bible you attacked Jesus 
Christ. In attacking Jesus Christ, you have attacked the roots of our 
nation. Whatever strikes at the roots of Christianity manifests in the 
dissolving of our civil government.''
  By the way, I would like to note that it might be appropriate in 
today's environment to use the words Judeo-Christian. Those words were 
apparently not used by our Founding Fathers, but I am sure recognizing 
the origin of all of these beliefs from the Bible, which is clearly 
Judeo-Christian, that Judeo-Christian might be a better way. But I am 
reading the actual words of our Founding Fathers. Please read Judeo-
Christian when they say Christian.
  ``Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament? It should be 
read and taught as the divine revelation in the schools.''
  This was the comment of the Supreme Court relative to a case relative 
to a case, Veta v. Gerrand, where a woman teacher, a lady teacher, was 
not using the Bible to teach morality. I have no idea how this got to 
be a court case and got to the Supreme Court. But this is what they 
said in 1845. ``Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament. It 
should be read and taught as the divine revelation in our schools. 
Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly and 
so perfectly as from the New Testament?''
  Could this Supreme Court possibly have imagined that our court would 
be considering whether or not ``under God'' is appropriate in the 
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  In 1892, the Supreme Court said, and this was the Church of the Holy 
Spirit and they contended that Christianity was not the faith of the 
people. This is what the Supreme Court said. ``Our laws and our 
institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of 
the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that they should be 
otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and 
institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against 
our religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, 
because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the 
discovery of this continent to this present hour, there is a single 
voice making this affirmation.''
  Then the justices went on to cite 87 different legal precedents to 
affirm that America was formed as a Christian nation by believing 
Christians.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have already noted, the Supreme Court in 1947, 
packed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt from seven to nine, completely 
repudiated 160 years of precedents when they declared there was a wall 
of separation between church and state. Those words do not appear in 
our Constitution, do not appear in the Declaration of Independence, and 
what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, is to determine what our 
Founding Fathers meant by that magnificent establishment clause in the 
First Amendment.
  Let us move now to the Congress and see what the Congress of our 
forefathers might have advised us. March 27, 1854, the Senate Committee 
on the Judiciary issued a final report on a year study. Humanism and 
Darwinism was sweeping our country, and the Supreme Court commissioned 
a year study, and this is what was said in their final report.
  ``The First Amendment clause speaks against an establishment of 
religion. The Founding Fathers intended by this amendment to prohibit 
an establishment of religion such as the Church of England presented or 
anything like it, but they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, 
nor did they wish to see us as an irreligious Nation.''
  Then, I really love these words. Obviously they were not watching 
much television when they used this vocabulary. ``They did not intend 
to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action 
of the Nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Had 
the people during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt to war 
against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its 
cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the 
Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be 
encouraged, not just one sect. The object was not to substitute Judaism 
or Islam or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the Christian 
denominations to the exclusion of others. Christianity must be 
considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws 
will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious 
sentiment, without the firm belief that there is power above us that 
will reward our virtues and punish our vices.''
  Would that Congress have indicated that the words ``under God'' are 
inappropriate?
  ``In this age, there can be no substitute of Christianity. By its 
great principles, the Christian faith is the great conserving element 
on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of our free 
institutions.''
  This is, again, from the Congress.
  ``That was the religion of our Founding Fathers, of the Republic, and 
they expect it to remain the religion of their descendants.''
  Let us look now at what was taught in our schools. By the way, before 
we leave the Congress, in 1854 there was a resolution, we pass many 
resolutions in our Congress, they passed a resolution. This is what it 
said. ``The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the 
Holy Bible for use in our schools.''
  Would that Congress have indicated it is inappropriate to have 
``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  Let us look at our schools, because that reflects the milieu in which 
our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was written. For 
over 200 years, the New England Primer was used, and this is the way it 
taught the alphabet.
  A, a wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is heaviness to 
his mother.
  B, better is little with the fear of the Lord than abundance apart 
from him.
  C, come unto Christ all you who are weary and heavily laden.
  D, do not the abominable thing, which I hate, sayeth the Lord.
  E, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.
  And so it went through all the 26 letters of the alphabet.

[[Page H11129]]

  Do you think that the society at that time, with that kind of a 
primer in their schools, would have imagined that we could be debating 
today whether it was okay to say ``under God'' in our Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag?
  The McGuffey Reader, used for over 100 years, it was so successful in 
getting children to read that a few years ago it was brought back to 
some of our school districts where children were not learning to read 
with the hope that there was something magic about the McGuffey Reader.
  ``The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are 
derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral 
governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the 
peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source,'' and this is 
all from the author of the McGuffey Reader, ``from no source has the 
author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred scriptures. For 
all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apologies.''
  Do you think that all of those thousands of school children and their 
families who used the McGuffey Reader could have imagined that we would 
be debating this subject today?
  Of our first 108 schools in this country, 106 were distinctly 
religious. Harvard University, the first university, named after a 
beloved New England pastor, John Harvard, this is what they said. ``Let 
every student be plainly instructed and expressly and earnestly pressed 
to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God 
and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life. John 17:3, and, therefore, to 
lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and 
learning.''
  This was in the student handbook for Harvard University. For over 100 
years, more than 50 percent of all Harvard's graduates were pastors.
  What have we reaped in our Nation in our departure from recognizing 
that God is a part of our heritage and it is perfectly appropriate to 
say ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?
  America 100 years ago had the highest literacy rate of any nation on 
Earth. Today we spend more on education than any nation in the world, 
and yet since 1987 we have graduated more than 1 million high school 
students who could not even read their diploma.
  We spend more money than any nation in the industrialized world to 
educate our children, and yet SAT scores fell for 24 straight years 
before finally leveling off at the bottom in the nineties, and they are 
not yet coming back up.
  In a 1960 survey, 53 percent of America's teenagers had never kissed, 
and 57 percent said they never necked, that is, to hug and kiss. 
Ninety-two percent of teenagers in America said they were virgins in 
1960. Just 30 years later, 75 percent of American high school students 
are sexually active by age 18.
  In the next 5 years, we spent $4 billion to educate them on how to be 
immoral through trumpeting the solution of safe sex, and it worked. One 
in five teenagers in America today lose their virginity before their 
13th birthday, and 19 percent of America's teenagers say they have had 
more than four sexual partners before graduation.
  The result, every day, 2,700 students get pregnant, 1,100 get 
abortions, 1,200 give birth. Every day another 900 contract a sexually-
transmitted disease, many incurable. AIDS infection among high school 
students climbed 700 percent between 1990 and 1995. We have 3.3 million 
problem drinkers on our high school campuses, over half a million 
alcoholics, and on any given weekend in America, 30 percent of the 
school population spends some time under the influence of alcohol.
  Do we really want to take ``under God'' out of our Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag? Should we not be doing something, Mr. Speaker, 
to reverse these trends in our country, rather to encourage them?
  I would like to read now a prayer that was written by an Oklahoma 
high school student, a little poem written about prayer. ``Our New 
School Prayer.''

     ``Now I sit me down in school
     Where praying is against the rule.
     For this great Nation under God,
     Finds mention of him very odd.

     If scripture now the class recites
     It violates the Bill of Rights.
     And any time my head I bow
     Becomes a Federal matter now.

     Our hair can be purple, orange, or green,
     That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
     The law is specific, the law is precise,
     Only prayers spoken out loud are a serious vice.

     For praying in a public hall
     May offend someone with no faith at all.
     In silence alone we must meditate,
     God's name is prohibited by the state.

     We are allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
     And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
     They have outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible,
     To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

     We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
     And the unwed daddy our Senior king.
     It is inappropriate to teach right from wrong,
     We are taught that such ``judgments'' do not belong.

     We can get our condoms and birth controls,
     Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
     But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
     No word of God must reach this crowd.

     It is scary here I must confess,
     When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
     So Lord, this silent plea I make,
     Should I be shot, my soul please take.''

  Our Nation, which used to lead the world in every arena, now leads 
the world in these areas. We are number one in violent crime, we are 
number one in divorce, we are number one in teenage pregnancies, we are 
number one in volunteer abortions, we are number one in illegal drug 
abuse, and we are number one in the industrialized world for 
illiteracy.
  Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that taking the phrase ``under God'' out 
of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is going to lead us in the 
right direction, or the wrong direction?
  Alexis de Tocqueville, and this is really a significant observation, 
traveled this country, a young Frenchman, for 5 years, and he wrote, 
``I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her 
great harbors, her fertile fields and boundless forests, in her rich 
mines and vast world commerce, in the universal public school system 
and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic 
Congress and in her matchless Constitution.''
  Mr. Speaker, had he visited us today when we represent only one 
person in 22 in the world, and yet we represent 25 percent of all of 
the goods and services in the world, one person in 22, somehow we have 
25 percent of all the good things in the world, might he have wondered 
further about how we got there and what was significant?
  ``But not until I went into the churches of America,'' he said, ``and 
heard her pulpits flame with righteousness, did I understand the secret 
of her genius and power.'' Alexis de Tocqueville, after watching us for 
5 years, concluded that the secret of our greatness and power did not 
lie in any of these great harbors or grain fields or military, not in 
our matchless Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, but he 
said, ``but not until I went into the churches of America and heard her 
pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her 
genius and power.''

                              {time}  1345

  America is great because America is good; and if America ever ceases 
to be good, America will cease to be great.
  Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that taking the words ``under God'' out of 
our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag will make us a better people?
  I would like to quote Abraham Lincoln again: ``We have been the 
recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved 
these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, 
wealth, and power as no other Nation has ever grown.''
  Mr. Lincoln, after 227 years in this great, longest-enduring Republic 
in the history of the world, these words are even more significant, 
because relatively today we are a greater Nation among the nations of 
the world than we were at your time. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for your 
words.
  ``But we have forgotten God,'' he says. ``We have forgotten the 
gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched 
us, and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that 
all of these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue 
of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-
sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming of preserving grace, too 
proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us then to humble 
ourselves before the offended power to confess our national

[[Page H11130]]

sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.''
  Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that Abraham Lincoln would understand why 
we are even debating in our Supreme Court the appropriateness of the 
words ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag?
  I know that I quoted the words earlier, but I think that we need to 
hear them again. Abraham Lincoln said: ``It is rather for us to be here 
dedicated to the great task remaining before us than from these honored 
dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the 
last full measure of devotion, that we here, highly resolved that these 
dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation, under God, shall 
have a new birth of freedom.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we face this discussion today because we 
would have forgotten from whence we came. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I do not 
think that the newest generation has forgotten; I do not think they 
ever knew, because our textbooks have been bled dry of all of the 
references to our Christian heritage.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that if the decision of this Supreme 
Court is grounded in the milieu in which our Declaration of 
Independence was written and our Constitution was written, they can 
reach no other conclusion but that the words ``under God'' in our 
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag are completely appropriate, were 
completely anticipated by those who framed our Constitution, by the 
Roman Catholic who could not vote in Old Virginia or could not vote in 
Maryland, Charles Carroll, for whom Carroll County in Maryland is named 
and Carroll Creek that runs through Frederick City, Charles Keller a 
major architect of that establishment clause.
  They did not mean, Mr. Speaker, that religion was unimportant in our 
country. What they wanted to accomplish is very clear in the words that 
they stated: ``Make no law concerning the establishment of religion.'' 
They did not want the Congress to empower one religion over another so 
that it could oppress the other religions. Because, Mr. Speaker, our 
Founding Fathers had come here from countries in the British Isles and 
in Europe, almost all of which were ruled by a king or an emperor who 
claimed, and was granted, divine rights. So they came here in our 
Declaration of Independence saying that all men are created equal.
  We read those words, Mr. Speaker, but we do not realize how important 
they were in that day and time, that all men are created equal. ``No 
emperor or no king created above the others and endowed by their 
creator.'' And four times in the Declaration of Independence God is 
referred to, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. 
Our Founding Fathers came here to escape two tyrannies, Mr. Speaker. 
One was the tyranny of the Church and the other was the tyranny of the 
Crown. On the continent, the Church was generally the Roman Church. In 
the British Isles, it was the Episcopal Church, and those countries 
empowered those Churches so they could if they wished oppress others, 
and they did.
  When our Founding Fathers came here because of their resentment of 
that oppression in Old Virginia and in colonial Maryland, Roman 
Catholics could not vote. But when it came time to write the amendments 
to our Constitution, they recognized how important it was that we 
provide religious freedom to everybody, so they chose a Roman Catholic 
to be a major architect of that. It is no coincidence, I think, Mr. 
Speaker, that in the very first of these amendments, they addressed 
their concern that all people should be free to worship as they please, 
that they should empower no religion over another religion. They could 
not have imagined that we would interpret these words as requiring 
freedom from religion. They clearly meant them to assure freedom of 
religion.
  I fervently hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court reviews in 
their private meditations the origins of our country, the milieu in 
which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were 
written, so that they can reach what I think is the only acceptable 
conclusion, and that is that our Founding Fathers clearly anticipated 
that a phrase like this would be very appropriate to our heritage and 
would be very helpful to our people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer that we will not need to come to this 
Chamber again to talk about this kind of a subject, that the Supreme 
Court will make a decision that will set to rest the concern about the 
role of God in our country. No one religion should be empowered so it 
can oppress the others. But beyond that, all people are free to worship 
as they please, and religion is not an inappropriate subject in the 
public domain.

                          ____________________