in prayer before the Supreme Court's decision in 1962. [See attached L.A. Times article of 8/27/82] (4) Same prayer advocates even go so far as to blame the decline in our schools on the Supreme Court decisions of 1962 and this cause and effect logic is best dealt with in humor: As Martin Marty has reasoned: Why did everything go wrong when everything went wrong? (5) Proponents claim the amendment is needed because the Supreme Court has banned all religion from public schools- BUT - the only practices prohibited are mandatory religious exercises. materials. Not the study of religion or religious For example, students may and do study the Bible for its ethical, literary, and historical qualities; they can and do study comparative religion; they can and do recite officially approved anthems with declarations of faith in a Deity. Neither the Bible nor moral instruction has been banned from the schools. Nor is there a ban on students meeting voluntarily for religious reasons. In the recent 7-2 decision of Widmar vs. Vincent, the Supreme Court said that religious activities are permissible on public school property. The amendment we all testified against last year and which was resubmitted this year as S.J. Res. 73 has been effectively dissected and discarded. The latest version proposed by Senator Hatch should be viewed in one of two ways. Either it is basically the same as the President's amendment, as some who wanted to testify were told, and therefore is subject to the pitfalls outlined above, OR it is totally meaningless. Meaningless because equal access is already to be found in the Constitution and periods of silent meditation in public schools have never been found to be unconstitutional. What I find disturbing is the lack of appreciation of the genius of the founders in crafting the First Amendment, especially in light of the way it has worked for the past 200 years. Let us recognize that the United States has avoided the secular strife of the Northern Irelands, the Irans, the Indias and the Pakistans, thanks in large part to the tradition of the First Amendment. There were times in the not so distant past when the government tracked down people who believed as I do as a Southern Baptist. It was not too long ago that Baptist ministers were beaten, imprisoned and run out of town in the Colony of Virginia for preaching doctrine at variance with that of the established church. Government can be benevolent, but government can also be bigoted. Same forces behind this amendment could take us back to the day when one person's religion would be imposed on another. Too often recently have I heard school prayer proponents make statements not unlike that of Deputy Attorney General Edward Schmults: "We must teach minorities to respect the right of the majority." How 39-015 0-84-33 frightening that statement is and how antithetical to story. And who cows who will be to the majority or minority tandaON. I am also very concerned about what the passage of the amendment might near for our schools already so overburdened. With today's problems, the last thing administrators, teachers, and students need as to be thrust 1000 sectariat strife. A recent editonal in USA Today 15 28 83) said it well: It is a state for Americans to waste so much passion VED SO hary more cmportant battles need to be fought. The real peril facing education has nothing to do with Bible teaching but, as a national comassor recently pointed out, nediocrity in the schools. When schools become a battleground for adult passions and Once again, I find myself in agreement with John F. Kennedy. I a news conference two days after the 1962 Supreme Court decusI I prayer, President Jerred, said that the "easy remedy for AmericanE against the edict was to "pray a good deal more at home and attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity." Mr. Caiman, the religious instruction of children is the responsibility of parents and their churches. It is clearly neither the responsibility nor the constitutional right of goverment or the polic schools. Protecting the arstitutional rights of America citizens is the sole responsibility of the courts and the Congress. We at People For the American Way prayerfully hope that the Congress will take no action to dilute the First Amendment, so hard won by our Founders, sc protective of our sacred rights and so much more important to the welfare of our children and of their children's children than government-sponsored prayers in school could ever be to anyone's cho Mr. Chaumen, we urge that the Committee not report and the Senate not pare S.3. Res. 3. [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 27, 1982] RESURRECTED SURVEY BELIES CALL FOR THE RETURN OF SCHOOL PRAYERS (By John Dart) Contrary to the Reagan Administration's claims that its proposed school prayer amendment would restore a widespread practice in public schools, most children in the West and Midwest never uttered an amen in class before the Supreme Court's 1962 ban. A seldom-cited survey taken 22 years ago has resurfaced recently to dispute a central rationale for legalizing "voluntary" prayer in public schools. The study indicated that homeroom devotionals were a common practice only in the Northeast and the South. But more than 91% of the school systems in the West and 74% in the Midwest said none of their schools conducted prayers in class according to the survey by Richard B. Dierenfield of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. His study, based on a 50% return of 4,000 questionnaires, was published in 1962, the year that the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled against state-sponsored prayers for devotional purposes. The court reaffirmed its ruling in 1963. FREQUENT LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS Legislative attempts have been made frequently since then to permit prayer in some form in public schools. The argument usually turns on whether the First Amendment stricture against government "establishment" of religion would be violated, as the Supreme Court said previous practices did. President Reagan fulfilled a campaign promise last May by presenting a proposed constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer. A White House background paper said school prayers had been "a widespread practice for 170 years" and Reagan's message to Congress said the proposed amendment would "allow prayer back in the schools." A similar motive was mentioned by U.S. Deputy Atty. Gen. Edward C. Schmults in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 19. ADMINISTRATION DISPUTED An opponent of the amendment, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, cited the Dierenfield study in disputing the Administration's view of the past, said Albert Menendez, research director for the organization. But Menendez said he has heard few other participants in the school prayer testimony and public debates cite figures on how prevalent prayer had been in schools. In some states, including California, religious devotions had been barred by educational codes well before 1962. Attorney Leo Pfeffer, a longtime Jewish spokesman for principles of church-state separation, has usually said prayers were being said in one-third to one-half of the nation's public schools before 1962. Menendez said that estimate matches the Dierenfield findings that 33% of U.S. school systems had prayer, 17% had some schools using prayer and 50% had none. CHANCES CALLED SLIM The proposed amendment's chances for congressional approval this year are slim, analysts say, because of the lack of time left before an expected early October adjournment in this election year. While some Senate activity is expected after Labor Day, the chances of the amendment getting out of committee to the House of Representatives floor are "nil," according to Forest Montgomery, counsel for the National Assn. of Evangelicals public affairs office in Washington. Many of the same arguments for and against prayer in schools are sure to be recited again before the 98th Congress, if the measure fails this year. More accurate arguments and some fine-tuning of terminology are in order, participants indicate. AMENDMENT QUOTED The NAE's Montgomery said that his organization, which backs a prayer amendment, uses the word "restore" but meaning "to restore a better balance between the establishment and free exercise of religion clauses in the First Amendment." The amendment proposed by Reagan reads: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer." James C. Corman, a former congressman from the San Fernando Valley and now a Washington attorney, insisted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 18 that "no child has ever been prohibited from praying in the public schools." In other words, a child may say an inaudible prayer in class. But that is unsatisfactory to prayer backers. "How is such a policy superior to that of an atheistic state like the USSR?" asked one evangelical newsletter. Television evangelist Pat Robertson echoed many proponents by pointing to polls which show most Americans favor a prayer amendment. Church officials who have opposed it "do not speak for the rank and file of the American people," Robertson asserted. TEEN-AGERS' VIEW DIFFERS Recent Gallup Polls show that of Americans familiar with the proposed constitutional amendment 79% are in favor and 16% oppose. That ratio differed from that of teen-agers, asked by Gallup pollsters if they would favor regular time set aside for prayer in their public schools; 45% were opposed and 42% in favor. That same Gallup Associated Press Youth Survey discovered that 6% of teens who attend public schools say prayers are said at a regular time-despite court rulings. A frequently cited objection to allowing school prayers is that no meaningful prayer could be found to satisfy the parents of children wishing to participate because of the religious diversity in America. Gallup has found, however, that relatively few Americans look to the schools, and progressively less to the church, for spiritual development of their children. A "meaningful" prayer in the schools thus appeared unimportant to most respondents, who tended to say they saw no reason to deny schools and communities the opportunity to conduct devotional exercises Are homeroom devotional services held in the schools of your system? Senator LEAHY. We will go now to Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Mr. Adams? STATEMENT OF W. MELVIN ADAMS Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. |