[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 21675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          SANTA ROSA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL PRAYER CASE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to add to the comments of my colleagues to briefly 
discuss a court case that may have ramifications for the constitutional 
rights of religious expression of all Americans.
  On August 27, 2008, the ACLU filed a complaint against the Santa Rosa 
County School Board in Florida, seeking to enjoin the parties from 
endorsing and engaging in religious activities, including prayer.
  The school district consented to an agreement prohibiting prayer at 
school-sponsored events. The school district then entered into a 
broader agreement prohibiting all employees from engaging in prayer or 
religious activities.
  Michelle Winkler, a clerical assistant in the Santa Rosa County 
School District, attended a privately funded event to honor non-
instructional employees in the school district. She asked her husband, 
who's not an employee of the district, to read a prayer that she had 
written, and was charged with civil contempt of court.
  Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert 
Freeman were charged with criminal contempt for a prayer offered at a 
luncheon to honor private contributors to the school's athletic 
program. There were no students present at either of these two events.
  In 2003, the Secretary of the Department of Education issued 
``Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public and 
Elementary and Secondary Schools.'' These guidelines state that public 
school officials must be neutral in their treatment of religion, 
showing neither favoritism nor hostility.
  The Supreme Court held that ``there is a crucial difference between 
government speech endorsing religion, which the establishment clause 
forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the free speech 
and free exercise clauses protect.''
  The court also held that ``private religious speech, far from being a 
First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free speech 
clause as secular private expression.''
  In its Santa Fe ruling, the court explained that not all religious 
speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is 
speech attributable to the government. Additionally, the court held 
that ``the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail 
to censor is not complicated.''
  Although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, 
students do not ``shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech 
or expression at the schoolhouse gate.''
  Yes, teachers and administrators, while acting in their official 
capacity, may not encourage, discourage, or participate in prayer with 
students. However, teachers may take part in religious activities 
before or after school or during lunch, as the context makes clear they 
are not acting in an official capacity.
  The circumstances involved in this case have unmasked the agenda of 
the ACLU. Students were not present in either event, yet contempt 
charges were brought against all parties. Mrs. Winkler was targeted for 
a prayer that her husband read, even though he was not an employee of 
the school district.
  Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman face penalties of 6 months in jail and loss 
of their retirement benefits for an innocent prayer said before a meal 
at which no students were present.
  America was founded on the principle of religious liberty, and the 
constitutional protection of this right does not stop when they enter 
the doors of our public schools.
  The ACLU is targeting small counties, towns, and school districts, 
not in an effort to protect against establishment clause violations, 
but to stifle religious expression.
  As John F. Kennedy said during his inaugural address, ``The trumpet 
summons us again to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle.'' He 
spoke of foreign enemies who posed a threat to our Nation's freedoms, 
but this case shows that this threat has become a reality here at home.

                          ____________________