"Because of the conflicts stemming from the pluralistic I have stressed the context in which this policy was adopted by our denomination. Though this study was started in 1960, the actual "year of decision" coincided almost precisely with the initial severe, often uninformed and intensely emotional reaction to the decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that climate, the solid and very widespread and public two to one affirmation testifies impressively to the depth and solidity of United Presbyterian commitment: "the government of our country must be neutral on matters of faith, dogma and indoctrination....We Presbyterians wish to live, teach and evangelize within a political order in which no church will dominate the civil authorities or be dominated by them." There are those who argue today that the introduction of official prayer in public schools is needed to arrest the evident decline in public and private morality. Surely, there is no lesson more passionately sounded in both Old and New Testaments of the Bible than the warning that the mere recitation of prayer has no authentic relationship to a pious life or faithful service to God or the community. I can do no better today than to respect what was said on this matter in 1964 by the Rev. William A. Morrison, then General Secretary of the Board of Christian Education of the United Presbyterian Church: "If evidence were available from the years in which Bible we might infer that the decisions of the Supreme Court had As an educator, I am also opposed to prayer and Bible reading Attempts to promote religion through government sponsorship, such as the amendment currently proposed, inevitably generate social and religious conflict. History is replete with bloody confirmation of the disastrous effort to compel faith or the observance of faith by civil fiat. Much of the world even today is sick with the fever generated when religion wields the power of government or contends for its favor and patronage. Should Congress send such a proposed amendment to the states, fifty legislatures will become religious combat zones, with the terrible examples of Northern Ireland and Lebanon not altogether inconceivable. Should such an amendment by some chance be ratified, the conflict will continue in every American community as well as in the courts. The fruit of your labor will not be civic morality but unceasing civil strife. The attempt to describe the issue as "voluntary" prayer is misleading. Any person can now pray in public school as faith leads them to pray, so long as that prayer is not coercive to others or disruptive of the school's life and function. The intent of the amendment is to provide officially sanctioned public group prayer as part of the program of the school. Το suggest that those who find state-sponsored religion meaningless, trivial or offensive may ask to be excused is like saying that black persons who find state-sponsored discrimination offensive can move to another country. We are guaranteed freedom from state-established religion, not the right to absent ourselves from its services. That guarantee should be kept intact and unambiguous. In summary, on behalf of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, I urge you to oppose the so-called prayer amendment. It would seriously erode a fundamental and precious freedom, introduce sectarian controversy into every American community, divert public schools from their proper responsibility, and reduce religious faith and practice to a travesty. Religion does not need and should not have the sponsorship of government. Prayer is too important to believers to be routinized, reduced to mumbled incoherence as a political talisman, and trivialized to bland pan-religious conformity. I thank you for this opportunity to communicate the opposition of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church to the proposed constitutional amendment on prayer in public schools and public institutions. 14th General Assembly (1982) ACCS Resolution H RESOLUTION ON THE PROPOSED PRAYER AMENDMENT REFERENCE X-176 [See page 108.] Whereas the President of the United States has submitted to Congress a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States with the following language: "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"; and Whereas the President stated that the amendment was necessary in order to "restore the right to pray" and "to allow our children to pray in school," though this right is secured to individuals under existing law and constitutional interpretation; and Whereas the intended effect of the proposed amendment is to permit a return to the situation that prevailed in many states twenty years ago, when officially sanctioned prayers were required or spon. sored, by public schools in classrooms; and Whereas columnist James J. Kilpatrick recently wrote: "It is pure sham to contend that in such circumstances 'prayer and meditation' can be made 'voluntary. Only the boldest children, willing to make themselves conspicuous, will walk out . . .The best solution is to leave a child's religious instruction where it belongs, in the home, in the church, in the temple, in his mind and heart. And when a child learns what prayer is all about, get him to read Matthew 6:5-8. The passage contains some marvelously sound advice"; and Whereas the 175th General Assembly (1963) of the United Presbyterian Church stated that: Because of the conflicts stemming from the pluralistic nature of our society; because of the abuses that have plagued every historic attempt at a theocratic society: because God has given all persons) freedom to choose or reject the redemption offered in Jesus Christ; and because organic entanglement of church and state inevitably deprives Ipersons) of the full exercise of that Godgiven freedom religious observances should never be held in a public school or introduced into the public school as part of its program Bible reading and prayers as devotional acts tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual and should be omitted for both reasons (Minutes, 1963, Part 1, pp. 185-186) and; Whereas the National Council of Churches, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Synagogue Council of America, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregation, as well as other religious and societal groups, have expressed their opposition to this attempt to legitimate government-sponsored religious observance: Therefore, the 194th General Assembly (1982) of the United Presbyterian Church, convinced that religion does not need and should not have the sponsorship of government and that attempts to provide such sponsorship will inevitably generate sectarian and interreligious conflict: 1. Declares its opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on school prayer, believing that officially sponsored religious exercises tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual, which compromise authentic faith and also threaten the erosion of constitutional protections. 2. Urges United Presbyterians not to be misled by references to officially sponsored classroom prayer as "voluntary" or by allegations that their children do not now have the right to pray in public schools. 3. Directs the Stated Clerk to communicate this resolution to the members of Congress. VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER MONDAY, MAY 2, 1983 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:53 a.m., in room 226-SD, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Thurmond and Grassley. Senator HATCH. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late this morning. The Republican Senators have had a conference on the budget, and that is, of course, one of the most important things we are currently doing in the U.S. Senate. But we appreciate having you here today. Secretary BELL. I might say, that an academe tradition say that you are to wait at least 30 minutes for a full professor, and we think that the chairman is at least a distinguished professor, so you are really not overtime. Senator HATCH. You may be the only one who thinks that way. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Ladies and gentlemen, this represents the second of 2 days of hearings by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on the proposed constitutional amendments relating to school prayer. As with our first day of hearings, we are fortunate to have with us today an outstanding group of witnesses with a diverse variety of perspectives on this important issue. I would emphasize again, as I did during our first day of hearing, that the issue here is not simply public school prayer; an equally important issue is how constitutional policy is to be formulated in a free and democratic society. Whatever one thinks about the merits of public school prayer, the Supreme Court's decisions in such cases as Engel and Abington can only be seen as having altered the previous prevailing understanding of the establishment clause of the first amendment meant. There decisions have raised serious questions in the minds of many constitutional scholars. Is it possible to conclude that the so-called "wall of separation" erected by these and other recent cases was intended by the found |