[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 110 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4566-H4569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the First

[[Page H4567]]

Amendment Defense Act and the importance of defending religious 
liberties in America. And I don't know that there has ever been a 
greater time for us to address this than right now. We have, 
unfortunately, become accustomed in this country of the news similar to 
what we woke up to this morning where we see one tragedy after another. 
Certainly racial tensions are extremely high in this country. Anger is 
high.
  We face a number of other issues across this country, like greed and 
self-centeredness, a disregard for authority and personal property and 
the rule of law. We see corruption in so many different places, 
including our government at all levels, be it on the local level, the 
State, or here on the national level as well.

                              {time}  1245

  Things like immorality and abuse. And, yes, we hear a lot these days, 
especially days like today, a lot of people talking about gun violence. 
But, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced at the core of my being that we cannot 
address these type of issues by turning our backs on God and by kicking 
God out of the public square.
  And, yet, we are seeing an increase of hostility in this country 
toward people of faith and the right that people have under the First 
Amendment to express those beliefs in the public square without fear of 
intimidation, without fear of being punished by our government.
  Mr. Speaker, all of this concerns me greatly, and I know it concerns 
many people not only in the people's House, but all across our Nation. 
I think many people don't realize that, even according to the 
Scriptures, the institutions of family, as well as church and 
government, have been instituted by God. These are not creations of 
man. And I think many of us, Mr. Speaker, forget the reality of this.
  In fact, the reason that government was created by God in the first 
place is because He knew that we, as human beings, need boundaries 
within which to live, and those boundaries actually comprise a civil 
society. And so we have government given to us as a great gift to 
enable us to have a tangible understanding of right and wrong and the 
boundaries within which to live, and if we get outside those 
boundaries, government is there for correction and to keep us within 
certain boundaries of behavior. That is what comprises a civil society.
  But, of course, the problem of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we 
realize that government itself is comprised of human beings, and if 
human beings within government themselves are corrupt, then everyone 
suffers; and so it becomes extremely important for us to understand the 
purpose of government and why it exists and why it has such an 
influence on all of our lives.
  On the other side, I guess, of the coin--perhaps not totally the 
other side, but certainly within the context of this discussion--is, in 
fact, people of faith. Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in this battle 
personally for very closely, nearly 15 years, but I find these days 
people of faith are very much intimidated, scared to get involved. And 
there are all sorts of reasons for this. I hear all kinds of excuses, 
but some of the bigger excuses that I hear frequently is people say we 
have that separation of church and State. Of course, we know, Mr. 
Speaker, that that is not in the Constitution, and, yet, we have heard 
it over and over and over and over to the extent that many people today 
actually believe that there is a separation that prohibits people of 
faith from being involved, be it in government or in multiple other 
avenues and areas of our society.
  And so that kind of erroneous thinking has an impact on something 
like the First Amendment and the right of the people to have belief and 
belief of conscience, and the right to exercise those beliefs publicly; 
but I also see, indeed, because of the growing hostility that is 
becoming more and more evident, that people are fearful of our 
government. People are fearful to stand up.
  There are multiple examples, multiple examples. I had a radio program 
for 12 years and I dealt with this type of thing on a regular basis, 
but the examples go everywhere from a baker to photographers, some of 
whom have actually lost their businesses because they chose to stand on 
their First Amendment right to exercise their businesses according to 
the dictates of their faith, and they have ended up losing their 
businesses.
  We have examples of valedictorians scared to offer a prayer or to 
express their beliefs in their valedictorian speech. We have workplace 
intimidation. We could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, a long time, 
talking about this, but the concern is highlighted by judicial leanings 
that we are seeing these days.
  I think it is more important now than ever that we understand that 
the First Amendment is the first amendment. It is our first liberty. It 
is the foundation upon which so much else rests. If the First Amendment 
is altered or chipped away at continually, then I am fearful that our 
entire Nation will suffer massive consequences and change as a result.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few moments to not only support 
the First Amendment Defense Act and the importance of defending 
religious liberties, but I think within that understanding, that 
context, now more than ever with the issues that we are watching, I 
want to kind of draw a word picture of why this is so important and why 
our Founders, why our Nation was actually established on these 
principles that we seem today so willingly to walk away from.
  But we have, I believe, a moral obligation to defend our First 
Amendment and to defend the rights of people to believe what they 
believe and to exercise those beliefs publicly without fear of 
intimidation, let alone punishment.
  I go all the way back to begin with, Mr. Speaker, our very first 
President, George Washington. Many of us probably had to memorize 
portions of his Farewell Address, but, you know, I have tried to place 
myself in that context many times, and the reality is that many within 
our country, when Washington was stepping down, were fearful. We had 
never had another President in our country at that time, and George 
Washington had done a superb job. People were anxious of the thought of 
him leaving, and it had never happened. We had never passed the baton 
from one President to another at that time.
  Washington, in his Farewell Address, Mr. Speaker, made this 
statement: ``Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political 
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.''
  Indispensable. Those are strong words: indispensable supports, 
religion and morality.
  He went on, Mr. Speaker, and he said this--and I think a lot of 
people overlook this comment, but he said: ``In vain would that man 
claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these 
great pillars of human happiness.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is totally fair to say that 
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, literally stated that you 
could not claim to be a patriot if you didn't understand the role of 
religion and morality in American culture and those indispensable 
pillars upon which our Nation rests. Amazing words that, unfortunately, 
we tend to overlook.

  Well, George Washington did pass the baton, and for the first time in 
our Nation's history we had another leader. His name was John Adams. 
Many of us know a lot about John Adams and some of the things that he 
did and said, but probably one of the most famous quotes from Adams was 
this one, Mr. Speaker--and if this paper here represents the 
Constitution, it was Adams who said: ``Our Constitution was made only 
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the 
government of any other.''
  I think those are enormously significant words. I mean, we all know 
that our Constitution basically is a contract. It is a contract between 
our government and we, the people; and that contract says that our 
government is not going to be overly intrusive into our lives, that we 
will have limited government and maximum freedom. That is the contract. 
John Adams said that that contract, that Constitution, was written for 
a moral and religious people, that it is totally inadequate for the 
government of any other.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I recall--it has been several years ago now--I was 
actually in a meeting with Governor Huckabee,

[[Page H4568]]

and he made a statement that for years now has just bubbled inside me, 
and it actually has become a changing moment in my life to understand 
what our Founders meant when they gave us the importance of religion 
and morality.
  But let's suppose we have two towns, a town A and a town B. Let's 
just suppose, Mr. Speaker, that town A is what we may refer to as a 
secular town. It is a town that, for the most part, has ignored the 
role of religion and morality. They, more or less, have kicked God out 
of the public square.
  What kind of behavior would we expect, Mr. Speaker, from town A here?
  Well, if we ponder that and if we look historically at this type of 
scenario, we will find that this type of society, for the most part, 
has greater incidence of things like violence, robbery, crime, gang 
violence, broken families, and all these types of things seem to go on 
the rise.
  Now, here is the important question, Mr. Speaker, that I think we 
have got to address when we are looking at something like this: What is 
the role of government toward town A?
  Well, if you think about it, of necessity, government must be very 
much involved in town A because there are so many problems here. We 
need more law enforcement because we have got so much more crime. We 
need more judges because we have got all these different things that 
are happening here, and there are conflicts between one another. Of 
necessity, government must be very much involved in town A.
  Now, let's go over here to town B. Let's just suppose town B is a 
town that, for the most part, has embraced a Judeo-Christian worldview, 
much like our Founders gave us. Many people here representing this 
House of Representatives probably grew up in a town B. I like to refer 
to this as a Mayberry type of a town. Not that everyone in town B is a 
person of faith or a religious person, but there is a certain worldview 
that is embraced in this town that embraces, that is accepted within 
this culture, this community, things like the Golden Rule, where we are 
going to treat one another the way we ourselves want to be treated.
  Now, let's just say, for example, that this town B accepts certain 
values along those things. Now, what kind of behavior do we expect out 
of town B?
  Well, not everyone over here is perfect by any means, but overall, 
many of us can go back and we can look 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, the 
difference of life then compared to life now, when we did have more of 
a town B-type understanding in our country, and there was less crime. 
Families did stay together more. We didn't suffer with the same extent 
of issues like gang violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and these type of 
things.
  So, Mr. Speaker, now the question is: What is the response of 
government to town B?
  Well, it is not nearly as great. The reason being, Mr. Speaker, the 
primary difference between these is what I believe our Founders gave 
us. In town B you have a group of people who are capable of self-
governing their own lives with an authentic understanding of right and 
wrong because there is deeply held religious, moral convictions that 
dictate the conduct of these individuals. I believe it is totally fair 
to say that I believe our Founders gave us the indispensable pillars of 
religion and morality because they understood that it is only within 
this context that we can have limited government.
  The role of government in this town is much less because you have 
self-governing people, and it is only within a context of self-
governance that we are able to have limited government. Thereby, the 
understanding of the statement by John Adams that says our 
Constitution, that contract of limited government--John Adams said our 
Constitution was written for a moral and religious people; it is 
totally inadequate for a government of any other.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my conviction, and I believe consistent with our 
Founders, to say that it is impossible to have limited government in a 
secular society. I don't know that that is even a possibility.

                              {time}  1300

  So we, as Members of this House and this governing body, be it 
Federal or on the State level or even local level, have a moral 
obligation to defend our First Amendment, because therein grows the 
roots of religion and morality that are absolutely essential to our 
system and form of government.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us also to be reminded that 
we have a tremendous religious heritage in this country that has 
carried us faithfully since our founding that we must not depart from.
  I remember coming across a statement a few years ago. In fact, this 
was in 1950. I would be curious to know, Mr. Speaker, how many of my 
colleagues were alive in 1950, but I would venture to say it is quite a 
number.
  I came across a court ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of 
Florida. It was a decision that they made in 1950. In that decision, 
Mr. Speaker, the Florida Supreme Court actually made this statement. By 
the way, they were referring to our Founders. But that court in Florida 
said:

       A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the 
     ethics of Jesus, and the Ten Commandments, could never have 
     evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, 
     or the Constitution.

  They went on and said:

       There is not one, solitary, fundamental principle of our 
     democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic 
     moral concepts embodied in the Ten Commandments.

  Mr. Speaker, I read that. In our lifetime, and that of many 
Representatives, a State supreme court was making a comment like that. 
I compare it to this. I cannot imagine any court in America making a 
decision with those kinds of words. They would be ruled 
unconstitutional quicker than we could imagine. Yet, in our lifetime, 
we had State supreme courts making decisions such as this.
  My, we have come a long, long way from understanding the role that 
religion and morality play in supporting our entire system of 
governance.
  Mr. Speaker, as I begin to land the plane here and wind down, I am 
just reminded, of course, that many know that I have been a pastor for 
many years. So this whole issue is very, very close to me personally.
  People of faith understand that they have a responsibility, according 
to the Scripture, to be salt and light in the world in which they live. 
Regardless of what country--anywhere in the world--we have a Biblical 
mandate to be salt and light in our world, and I take that very 
seriously.
  So, when we see our First Amendment rights being challenged or 
chipped away, it is an alarming thing, because we have a 
responsibility, in accordance with our faith, to take a stand for those 
things which we believe, and to do so out loud.
  Just from that perspective, Mr. Speaker, it is alarming. But the 
beautiful thing is, here in America, we are blessed to live in a nation 
where our system of government does not work without involvement from 
the people. Our whole system is reliant on the people of this great 
country to step up to the plate and engage it. That is the concept 
behind those powerful words, ``we, the people.'' This is our country. 
It is our turf. It is we, the people.
  So, we have a system of government that does not work unless we, the 
people, get involved in one capacity or another, whether it is voting 
or whether it is running for office or a million other things to be 
done in between. That is the way our system works.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just emphasize the importance that we have to 
maintain those principles that allow all of us, regardless of religious 
beliefs, regardless of those who have no religious beliefs, but also 
remembering those who do have religious beliefs, that this is a country 
where the First Amendment protects all of us. This is a country where 
the First Amendment Defense Act applies to all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close with a quote. Right out these doors is 
Statuary Hall. Sometime back late one evening, I had some spare 
moments, and I came back over here to the Capitol and was walking 
alone. I was virtually all by myself here in these great Halls. I went 
into Statuary Hall, and I started reading and going to one statue after 
another. I went around reading about those individuals, and I came to 
one, James Garfield.
  Mr. Speaker, many people don't know much about Garfield these days, 
but he is the only minister to ever be elected President of the United 
States of America.
  I stood before that statue and I looked at him and, Mr. Speaker, I 
was

[[Page H4569]]

reminded of a statement. I actually have come to be a great admirer of 
Garfield. It seems to me that everything I have read from him has been 
powerful. He seemed to have a keen awareness and understanding of the 
role of what I am talking about today: the role of religion and 
morality in American society and culture and our entire system of 
government.
  Garfield made this statement, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is more 
applicable today than it has been in any day in which we have lived. 
Here is what he said:
  ``Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the 
character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and 
corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and 
corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the 
people demand these qualities to represent them in the national 
legislature.''
  Then, he said this, Mr. Speaker:
  ``If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it 
will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and 
the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political 
forces.''
  What a powerful statement.
  Mr. Speaker, being reminded of that statement, I would ask us today: 
How can we, the people be involved, be it in the enterprise, the 
culture, or the morality of the Nation? How can we, as Garfield said, 
be involved in controlling the political forces if we do not have the 
First Amendment protections to do so? How can we be engaged if we 
continue to chip away at the right of people to believe what they 
believe and to exercise those beliefs within the public square without 
fear of intimidation or punishment?
  Mr. Speaker, I believe now more than ever is the time for us not to 
chip away at our First Amendment rights, but to defend them and protect 
them and ensure that those rights are maintained for all Americans now 
and for the next generation and for as long as this Nation exist.
  Mr. Speaker, as the First Amendment Defense Act comes before this 
body in the weeks to come, I hope and pray that we will stand behind 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________