Senate and the House should vote on whether we have a constitutional amendment in this regard or not. I think there is enough interest in it. But when we do that, I would like to make sure that when we vote on it and it goes on the floor of the Senate, that we have had a full hearing record with both sides having been heard. For those like myself who prefer to think that prayer is something, as far as children are concerned, that they ought to deal with their parents in their own religious background, whether it is Jewish, Christian, whatever, that they do it that way, we certainly should have our feelings heard. Those who feel that the Government should step into this field and have some determination of whether children say prayers or how they say prayers, well, then, they should also have a chance to be heard. My own feeling, as I said before, is that that is something that should be between a child and his parents and their own religious leaders. The Government gets its nose into too many other things. I may well be the minority on that, one, too. But we will start with you, ma'am. STATEMENT OF A PANEL, INCLUDING SHERRY STANFORD, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, WASHINGTON OFFICE, EPISCOPAL CHURCH; AND RABBI BRUCE KAHN, ON BEHALF OF UNION OF AMERICAN HEBREW CONGREGATIONS Ms. STANFORD. My name is Sherry Stanford, legislative associate, Washington office of the Episcopal Church. I am here today to respond to the proposed Hatch amendment and to reiterate the position of the Episcopal Church regarding prayer and religious exercises in public schools. In November 1981, the executive council of the Episcopal Church adopted the following resolution in response to legislation being proposed in the 97th Congress: Whereas, there are proposals pending in the Congress of the United States to facilitate the establishing by governments of prayer in the public schools; and Whereas, it is not and should not be the business of government to establish when people shall pray or the prayers which they shall use; and Whereas, it is always open to any person to pray at any time whether in the public schools, at work or at play; therefore, be it Resolved that this Executive Council encourages the use of prayer in connection with all aspects of daily life, while at the same time strongly opposing all attempts by the state to establish when or how people shall pray and thus opposing all government legislation which would prescribe means or methods of prayer in public schools or which is designed to encourage local authorities to prescribe such means or methods of prayer in public schools; and be it further Resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to every member of Congress. The Hatch amendment is unacceptable, based upon the reasons set forth in the aforementioned resolution. I believe I am going to stop here, in the interest of saving some time, and not comment on the amendment, because the points that I would make have already been made today. Mr. SCOTCH. Your entire statement will, of course, be included in the record. Ms. STANFORD. Yes, I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity for being able to be here. Mr. SCOTCH. We appreciate your being here. [The unread portion of Ms. Stanford's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED Statement of SHERRY STANFORD Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group silent prayer or mediation in public schools. . There is nothing prohibiting an individual from praying silently in public schools. Group silent prayer, however, would require a leader to suggest that the group pray or meditate, and in all likelihood, it would be a governmental official, a teacher, acting upon policy formulated by the state or local school district that there be time set aside for silent prayer or meditation. Neither the United States nor any state shall require any person to participate in such prayer or reflection . . . While student participation would not be required, non-participating students would be forced either to leave the classroom or to sit with the group while not participating. Such would be an embarrassing situation for the nonparticipant. In either case, the formalization of silent prayer by a governmental entity would engender some measure of coercion of the student to participate in the organized religious activity. Nor shall they encourage any particular form of meditation or prayer. .. A state or local governmental entity would determine that a time for silent prayer or meditation be provided during the day. The amendment would encourage some local authorities to set aside a time of prayer or meditation and it is not the business of government to establish when people shall pray. Thank you for the opportunity to present the position of the Episcopal Church. Mr. SCOTCH. Rabbi Kahn. STATEMENT OF RABBI BRUCE KAHN Rabbi KAHN. I am Rabbi Bruce Kahn, and I am honored to be here today on behalf of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, comprised of 750 member synagogues and 1.2 million Jewish congregants, served by the 1,200 members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. I will give a very brief version of the document that has already been submitted, also to save time and not to be too terribly repetitious. Jewish history teaches us to be especially cognizant of issues pertaining to religion and the state, which has a lot to do with why I am here today. While it is our purpose to address primarily the issue of silent prayer and meditation, it is necessary to say a few words about the equal access provision. The wording of this provision is, on the surface, neutral, yet, we believe that insofar as the possibility exists to permit voluntary religious clubs to form and meet in public school facilities under the sponsorship of the school, this violates the fundamental values of the Constitution and sets a precedent which can lead to radical changes in the constitutional separation of church and state. The result of this amendment would be that public school classrooms will be turned over during the week to student religious groups for religious instruction and practice. Either the groups will meet with or without any supervision, or under the supervision of outsidersboth of which would be an abrogation of the responsibility of the school authorities-or they will meet under the supervision of teachers or other school personnel, which is clearly an example of state-run religion. Our understanding is that the public schools were intended to be places where all students would have the opportunity to participate equally in all activity. The presence of sectarian religious clubs violates this concept. In addition, their formation could well open the door for religious proselytization in the schools. The clubs will inevitably further self-segregation of students along religious lines, divisiveness among the student and teacher bodies, and will raise the specter of the entanglement of the school authorities in sponsoring or running religious activities, thereby undermining the foundation of religious freedom through church-state separation, currently preserved by the Constitution. With your permission, I would like now to turn to the issue of silent prayer and meditation being established in the schools. To the extent that the proposed amendments change the Constitution, they raise serious problems for Jews. If the intent of the provision is to allow children to pray or meditate silently at their own initiative, as has been stated many times, that is already permitted by the Constitution, as well as being encouraged by Jewish tradition. No drastic measure such as changing the Constitution is necessary for this to occur. Currently, the urging to pray or meditate emanates from a child's religious conviction and religious authorities, including the youngster's parents. That is natural and right. The urging does not emanate from secular public school authorities. That would be, in our land, unnatural and wrong. Further, the 1-minute silent format will, for many students, bring confusion to their worship habits and perhaps trivialize the experience for them. This amendment may well weaken the sanctity of prayer in the minds of the young. It was in the past, and remains so in the present, difficult enough to get everyone to behave when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Now we try to institute in public school a minute of meaningful silence, just when the kids have arrived and are anxious to talk with their friends, and not yet settled down to do what they are there to do: learn. And the teacher says, "Okay, boys and girls, you must be quiet now so we can have a minute of meaningful silent prayer or meditation." The request goes unheeded, and then the teacher gets stern: "Children, quiet down and pray." The normal atmosphere in the early morning classroom will likely wipe out quickly the voluntary nature of this activity. And who is there to check for abuses? Finally, it is said that public opinion seems to favor a constitutional amendment allowing prayer and voluntary religious activity on the school premises. No doubt each of you, each of the Senators, have received a lot of mail in favor of rewriting the Constitution. But I am sure the Senators would agree that if the foundation of the Constitution were always to bow to whatever popular passion stirs voters in any particular year, the entire Bill of Rights would already be a relic of history. We know that there is good reason for such concern regarding this amendment. Such an amendment could not be enacted without violating the spirit of the Constitution. There could well be attempts to stretch the limits of the law, and there could arise prejudicial interpretations on the part of individual teachers, students, and administrators. The amendment will not only give rise to a plethora of court values on its interpretations, but it also sets up an umbrella to shield countless, inevitable abuses that will go unreported. And many of us in the Jewish community are particularly sensitive to the ability of public institutions to give sanction to prejudicial treatment of the law. And in many local communities, it may be unbearably threatening for a lone Jewish family to protest the unfair application of the law. The only proper response to potential infringements of religious freedom is to check them as they begin their encroachment on the borders of the Constitution. There is great precedent for this in Jewish law, and it is called Siyag latorah [phonetic], to put a fecse around our most precious values, and that is, to reject, to fence out, seemingly innocuous changes that could well lead to serious transgressions. Prayer is wonderful. Public school sponsorship of prayer and religious clubs-that is the transgression. Senate Joint Resolution “blank” and S. 815 are but first steps to Senate Joint Resolution 73. These would establish a precedent for more and stronger bills and resolutions to follow, until we return to and go beyond the way it was in the fifties and before, when the constitutional rights of so many youngsters were so regularly violated in public schools. Please put a fence of protection around the constitutional guarantees afforded the children of our land; the right of religious freedom through the separation of church and state. Let us not compromise that free, unfettered exercise of religious liberty. Let us retain the integrity of this value. Our profound respect for the Congress and its desire to serve the common good leads us to say to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we look to you to promote a free and just society in our schools and not to promote the formal organization of religion in public schools. Many Jews would see a rejection of Senate Joint Resolution "blank," Senate Joint Resolution 815, and Senate Joint Resolution 73 as a sure safeguard for the preservation of our religious heritage, and the religious heritage of not many Americans, but of each American. Thank you very much. [The following was received for the record.] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI BRUCE KAHN I am Rabbi Bruce Kahn. I am here today on behalf of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations whose 750 congregations nationwide represent 1.2 million Jews and the Central Conference of American Rabbis representing over 1200 Reform Rabbis throughout the United States. As Jews, we are particularly concerned with issues of religious liberty. Our holiday of Chanukah is a testimony to humankind's sacred right to worship God each in our own way. Throughout history, Jews have characteristically been victims of religious tyranny. I do not suggest that the Jewish Bible or Jewish theology enjoins us to separation of church and state. Rather, I believe that the totality of Jewish history is a devastatingly powerful argument for church/state separation. No matter what the land or the era, when any religious group was able to control the state, Jews were not free. As clergy and religiously concerned people the CCAR and UAHC are deeply committed to a vision of a society that is guarded by religious values and that is imbued with a transcended sense of Godliness permeating every human activity. It is a vision described in our liturgy "of a world perfected under the Kingdom of God." That is our daily prayer, and in our various enterprises, as Americans and as Jews, we strive and hope to make that vision more of a reality. We are thus spiritually attuned to what is surely the very antithesis of secularism. Our goal is the "holy" society. But, as I will indicate presently there is a crucial difference between society and state. In our plural society, the state must be truly neutral if society is to achieve holiness. Like all American citizens, we cannot view with equanimity any effort whose effect any way. As religionists, we have an additional and very special stake, because this Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment, have, since the founding of our Republic, assured a climate which has made for unparallelled growth of religious activity and liberty in this country. We would therefore oppose any effort to tamper with this precious heritage. I come here today to give voice to a deep conviction that the Constitutional Amendment which is before you, however wellintentioned the motivations of its sponsors and however noble the objectives contemplated, represents a dangerous experiment upon American liberties. it will begin an irreversible process which will result in an unraveling of the historic fabric of the Bill of Rights. It would, I suggest, earn for this Congress If adopted, |