[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25602-25605]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 25603]]

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 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

[[Page 25604]]

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 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

[[Page 25605]]

     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 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).

                          ____________________