[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20527-20528]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CHURCH AND STATE

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have followed with interest the remarks 
of the Senator from Delaware about the Founding Fathers. Like him, I am 
unburdened with a legal education, but like him I believe I can read 
the English language, and that I have spent some time studying not only 
the Constitution but the history behind it. In the spirit of the 
remarks that have been made here, I add a few comments of my own.
  It is very clear to me from studying the history of the first 
amendment that the primary concern of the Founders was to prevent the 
creation of State churches in the various States. There was never any 
movement to have a national church, but there were movements on the 
part of some of the individual States to have State churches. One of 
the reasons for the fact that there was not a national movement was 
that different States were dominated by different religions.
  For example, the Puritans who came to what became the State of 
Massachusetts came to flee persecution they found in Europe. Then once 
they had established their colony in Massachusetts, they proceeded to 
persecute those who didn't agree with them. One of them, Roger 
Williams, went over to found what is now the State of Rhode Island, and 
created in Rhode Island a bastion of religious liberty about which the 
Senator from Rhode Island instructed a group of us at noon today. I 
found his presentation to be very interesting and worthwhile.
  So a national religion covering all 13 States united in the United 
States of America was never in the cards. But there were some who felt 
that individual States might adopt a State church in that particular 
State, in one particular State or another. The Founding Fathers in the 
first amendment made it clear that there must not be a State church in 
any of the individual States. That was the driving force behind the 
words in the first amendment.
  There are those in today's society who read the first amendment and 
its prescription of freedom of religion to mean that the Government 
should guarantee everyone freedom from religion, that the Government 
should vigorously put down any reference to religion that takes place 
in the public square.
  I think that is a misreading of the Founders' intention, and I think 
that particular notion is behind the recent court ruling that has given 
rise to the speeches we have heard here on the floor.
  I want to make one other observation about this, as long as I have 
the floor. America is known as a religious country. As I travel abroad 
and deal with some of our European friends, I find many of them to be 
perplexed by that. Indeed, one religious commentator said to me that if 
you are religious in Europe, you will be treated with disdain. Europe 
has now entered its post-Christian era.
  That is a very interesting statement, to think that Europe went 
through a pre-Christian era, then a Christian era, and now it is in a 
post-Christian period.
  When you go throughout the great cities of Europe and look at the 
many churches, you find that most of them have been turned into concert 
halls, or tourist attractions, and they are not used for religious 
purposes anymore.
  So why is Europe turning away from religion where America remains a 
strongly religious nation? I am sure there are many reasons, but the 
one that strikes me as cogent is the fact that we have never had a 
State church here in America. That means religions in America have had 
to compete for adherence in the public square on the basis of their 
doctrine, on the basis of their humanity and compassion, on the basis 
of their attractiveness to those who might want to affiliate with them, 
whereas in Europe you are required by law to join a particular church 
in a particular country.
  When the government and the church become intertwined together in 
that fashion, even to the point where the government provides funds for 
the church, that makes it unnecessary for the church to appeal to its 
adherents sufficiently that they will support it out of their own 
pocketbook, you get a corruption of both.
  It was very interesting to me to travel to Russia after the Soviet 
Union collapsed and spend some time talking with Russian officials 
about this very issue. The Russian Parliament had passed an act which I 
believed was violative of the notion of freedom of religion and I went 
over to visit with them to talk to them about it.
  After having visits with members of the Duma as well as members of 
the Yeltsin administration and their justice department, I was assured 
they would lean on the concept of freedom of religion and that the law 
would not be used in any way to persecute certain religions that had 
come in from outside, once the Iron Curtain was over and religions were 
made welcome there.
  But the interesting conversation out of all of that in the context of 
what I am saying here came from some individuals who were talking about 
the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russian life. After the fall 
of the Soviet Union, the Russians were making an effort to identify 
themselves once again as something other than Communists, trying to 
figure out who they were, asking the fundamental question: What does it 
mean to be a Russian? Of course, the members of the Russian Orthodox 
Church hierarchy said being a

[[Page 20528]]

member of the Russian Orthodox Church is important to being a Russian, 
but they also said we do not want to be a State church again. We have 
been there, and we know how debilitating it is for the church to have 
government involvement in our affairs and to have government financing 
our affairs.
  As we have this debate over the words that go into the pledge--a 
debate that I think will ultimately be settled in the courts one way or 
the other, and if the precedent is as it has been, the words ``under 
God'' will be retained in the pledge--let us take the occasion to 
remember why we have such religious strength in this country. It is the 
fact that we have had freedom of religion, and we have had different 
denominations competing in the public square for their various 
adherents and not depending upon the Government for funding or 
direction, unlike many of the countries in Europe.
  America is not in its post-Christian era the way Europe is, and, 
ironically, I think one of the reasons is because America has never had 
a government dictation of what that would mean, what religion ought to 
be. But again, even as we celebrate freedom of religion, I hope we 
don't go so far as to have Government dictate freedom from religion and 
tell us that we must in some way or other, however subtle, persecute 
people of faith.
  I had the honor of receiving an honorary degree at one of our 
universities, and the commencement speaker was the Catholic bishop of 
the area served by that university. He made the point that he respects, 
and it is required by our Constitution to respect, all of those who 
disagree with him and have made the choice not to worship anyone. But 
he said, I only ask in return that they extend to me the same respect 
for the fact that I have chosen to worship and that they do not use 
Government affairs to persecute me for having chosen to believe, just 
as I say we must not use Government agencies to persecute those who 
have chosen not to believe.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss a resolution, 
strongly disapproving of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of California that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this 
resolution later today. ,
  The Pledge of Allegiance is a record of American values and history 
and the words of the Pledge still resonate in the convictions of 
Americans today.
  For more than 50 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included 
references to the flag, to our country having been established as a 
union ``under God,'' and to this country being dedicated to securing 
``liberty and justice for all.'' The Senate believes, as recognized in 
a resolution passed unanimously in 2003, that the Pledge is a fully 
constitutional expression of patriotism.
  However, some of our courts have either no respect for or 
understanding of these American traditions.
  Several years ago--June 26, 2002--in what has become an infamous 
case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the 
Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional when recited voluntarily 
because it uses the phrase ``one nation under God.''
  On June 14, the Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the 
phrase ``one nation under God,'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling 
that the plaintiff could not challenge the patriotic oath because he 
did not have standing in the case. This procedural ruling did not 
directly address whether the pledge recited by generations of American 
schoolchildren is constitutional. It left the Pledge vulnerable to 
another challenge.
  Not unsurprisingly, on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and four 
others filed a second suit in the Eastern District of California 
challenging again the words ``under God'' in the Pledge.
  Yesterday, the Eastern District of California refused to dismiss the 
case, holding instead that the Ninth Circuit's ruling in 2002--that the 
words ``under God'' were unconstitutional--was still good law. The 
effect of the court's ruling is that the Pledge has been deemed 
unconstitutional in three Sacramento-area school districts. This issue 
will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit again.
  We are a nation of many faiths and beliefs. Tolerance for dissent is 
one of our great American values. But so is our common conviction that 
America is a nation that seeks the will and enjoys the protection of 
Divine Providence. The fact that some might disagree with that 
conviction is not a reason to deprive the rest of us of our right to 
affirm it in the Pledge.
  I hope this body will join me in expressing support for the 
constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance by passing this 
resolution that the Senate strongly disapproves of yesterday's decision 
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________