Date: 1984-03-05
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. only a constitutional amendment can check this systematic. uninterrupted rush by Pederal courts to eliminate the very foundation of our being. Frankly. it Is absolutely. Incredible that we should even be placed in the situation of having to argue for a right that so many have fought and died fornamelyto pray to the Almighty. Acceptance of a Divine Being is a principal basis of our development as a nation. and It is offensive for any court of law to arbitrarily strike this core of our existence from the national purpose. The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion. It does not prescribe freedom from religion. The Founding Fathers In their infinite wisdom were justifiably concerned about stateestablished denominations. This is why the debate at the Constitutional Convention leading up to the establishment clause of the first amendment was among the most important of the entire Constitution. The foresight and genius of the establishment clause has truly given us religidus freedom. If any nation in the history of the world ever had freedom of religion. then certainly it is the United States of America. But those same Founding Fathers were not neutral about religion. They were only opposed to establishment of a state religion. They clearly recognized the presence of a Divine Being. They invoked providence at every conceivable turn. and in deliberation after deliberation leading up to the founding of the Republic. they were anxious to associate the Almighty with the official results of their labors. From this genesis as a nation. we honored God and the work of our forefathers by emiloying -prayer as a part of our culture and development. We developed historically by -making prayer a"key part of our national life. Our coinage. seals. emblems. sthools. courts. legislatures. civie events all sanctioned the name of God and ree-. ogritzed His existence. Now. in one fell swoop. the Supreme Court of the United States In the Engel case in 1962 strudk down almost 200 years of history and replaced It. with the rule of secularism. Of course. with Engel the precedent was set. and in subsequent cases prayer and all official mention of God in the schools was stricken. Ironically. while the right of children to participate in prayer and to so express themselves was wiped out. schools were encouraged to have children -exercise their first amendment rights to do anything they pleased as long as the law was obeyed. Thus. we have the ironic to the extreme. In modern schools students can gather for the purpose of paying homage to any current cult. but if caught paying homage to God. then they are in violation of the law. What really galls me is that the opponents of school prayer respond that this may be true. but after all. nothing precludes a student from reciting a silent prayer. Well. nothing precludes a child in Soviet Russia from reciting a silent prayer either. So. no right has been maintained or appointed simply because a child can think about God. But Heaven forbid if that same child. or a group of children. attempt to pray out loud at the beginning of the school day because if they do. the law is against them. I. for one. am getting fed up with a handful of malcontents trying to rearrange our history. our Constitution and our way of life. The overwhelming majority of the American people want prayer in schoolover four in five want the right restored. Yet. the Federal courts have given a vociferous minority preferential rights in dictating what the majority can and cannot do. Our Constitution clearly guarantees rights for minority thinking and minority expression. It does not confer such rights in a way that creates a tyranny over the majority. Yet. that Is exactly what we have in the initial prayer decision and subsequent court decisions based upon it. On Thomas Jeffersons Memorial there are words so profound. so moving. and yet so simple in their message until it sums up this debate. It bears repeating. and I quote: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Jefferson knew the answer to his question. and we know it. When we overtly or covertly strike the Almighty from the national endeavor. we undermine that endeavor. And. let there be no mistake about it. I might add that after thie Engel decision was handed down or public schoolswent through a transformation. There was constant deterioration in discipline. SAT scores decreased. and drugs became a terrible factor in the development of our youth. In short. the Court opened the Pandoras box of secularism In our schools. and thoughtful. reflective Americans are justifiably afraid that it will never be closed. The prayer amendment is needed. It is needed to rekindle respect for authority in schools. It is needed to remind us all that faith. devotion and adherence to a higher order Is to be desired over adherence to the temporary materialistic whims of the times. The Court has legislated. Now it is time for Congress to legislate. It Is time to give democracy a chance to work. There can be no valid reason for bottling up the prayer amendment any longer. I respect the views of those who are opposed to the amendment. but I respectfully disagree with the dilatory tactic employed by them to keep the full House. the State legislatures. and above all. the American people. from having an opportunity to fully debate the question. Its time for the judiciary committee to fulfill the public mandate that has been pronounced over and over in various national polls. It is not fair to tell the overwhelming majority of the American people that they have no stake in their destiny as free men and women. Yet. this is exactly what is happening every day the prayer amendment is bottled up in committee. No religion is established by this amendment. On the contrary. It confirms the constitutional neutrality toward specific religions. No coercion is caused by this amendment. It is voluntary. In short. it reaffirms the establishment clause of the first amendment by confirming what the forefathers had in mind. It represents a return to the legal norm that kept us in good stead until that norm was thrust aside by bad law and bad precedent. In short. I support the prayer amendment. I feel it Is good law. I feel it is long overdue. and I feel that my colleagues on the Judiciary Committeeall of whom I respect as sincere individuals with different points of viewshould get on with the public mandate.