with us, they are dealing with those down in the gutter. At least one witness feels somewhat different. Sentor HATCH. I have heard us compared to this red light a few times. As the- Sentor LEAHY. In various ways. Sentor HATCH. Yes, that is right. Well, I have certainly enjoyed your testimoy. I think in your own eloquent way you have made a lot of very important points here today. John we are happy to turn to you. You are our last witness. We appreciate having you here, and then we would like to ask some questions. STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCHANAN Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to appear before you, and I am here today singing my usual song, which is a song of celebration of the first amendment and for the wisdom of our forefathers in framing that amendment which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights and the most fundamental protection of our liberty. Without discounting any of the concerns here earlier expressed, on your own concern, Mr. Chairman, because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty in our time, as in every time, we would urge the Senate to resist any and all attempts to weaken or dilute the first amendment. We are celebrants of the diversity of our society. I understand there are some 200 religious sects in the country today. We are a nation that has been composed not only of Christians, and although I have not met many, I understand secular humanists, but also Jews and Muslims and people of other faiths, and people of no faith at all. And the fact that the first amendment has created-has protected the individual freedom of conscience so that people as free moral beings in this society can choose what to believe and how to believe and practice. This is our most fundamental freedom. We would urge therefore that no action be taken in the name of improving on the law which would in fact dilute the basic protections of the first amendment. Now, we recognize that those same values which shape political beliefs also shape religious beliefs, and there is going to be some inevitable mixing of one's religious views and one's political views and activities and, therefore, we asked Jim Castelli, who is Washington bureau chief of Our Sunday Visitor, which is the largest U.S. Catholic weekly, to prepare for us an issue paper which is entitled "Ten Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics." The guidelines and principles that he iteates in that paper are in my written testimony and I would commend it to your attention. Sentor HATCH. We would be happy to have it. Mr. BUCHANAN. I would like to deal with one of the subjects, and that is the fact that government does have some right to demand that religious institutions comply with reasonable regulation and social policy. I am an active member of the Riverside Baptist Church, at 680 I Street SW., Washington, DC. I would invite you all to come to church Sunday. It is wonderful. But, we have not yet organized a Baptist Fire Brigade, so if our church would catch fire on Sunday, we would call the D.C. Fire Department. It is therefore reasonable that we in our building must comply with those basic fire and safety codes. More seriously, many terrible things have been done historically in the name of religion. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious wars and persecution, Baptists in Virginia were beaten and imprisoned and run out of town for proclaiming their Baptist faith. We know the story of the Mormons in the United States. Many things have been done in the name of religion that were wrong, child sacrifice, the burning of people at the stake, the drowning of witches and so forth. So there must be some reasonable way for society to expect basic compliance with law on the part of religious groups and religious persons. And it seems to me, for example, as the Supreme Justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court said, pertaining to the Bob Jones case, that: Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a significant impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets. The Government has a fundamental overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education. That Government interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. It is not always easy to delineate where the line must be drawn. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in such a basic matter as civil rights, that our society has no more important business than to make sure that every person born into this society, regardless of that person's sex or race or economic condition, or geographic location, has every opportunity and every incentive to become the most, the best that is in that person to be, to rise to that person's full stature and fulfill whatever gifts God has given that person. Now, as I, as a religious believer, believe that as a part of my religious belief, but it also seems to me that is so basic and fundamental a right of American citizens that the Constitutional civil rights of American citizens must be protected at all costs, and not even a religious group in the name of religion has the right to violate those most basic rights of our American citizens. So we would urge that you look in depth at these difficult questions and that you, by all means, stand by the first amendment which for nearly 200 years has protected our rights. And that while recognizing that Government has some reasonable right to expect of religious people what it expects of all citizens, that the basic freedoms that we have been guaranteed to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers be protected in the way they have been for 200 years, and that is by cherishing and keeping the first amendment undiluted and unchanged, whatever else the Senate might wish to do. [Material submitted for the record follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCHANAN, JR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is John Buchanan and I am here today on behalf of People for the American Way, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, First Amendment citizens' group working to protect individual freedoms. I am pleased to appear today to present our views on the subject of religious freedom and the mixing of religion and politics. the year Our only partisanship is on behalf of the constitutional liberties of American citizens in 1984, an especially timely issue. This year, Americans will elect a President whose term will expire in 1989 the Bill of Rights was proposed and the 201st anniversary of the Constitution. This constitution has been the guiding document for the oldest and most successful democracy on the face of the earth. People for the American Way is working to ensure that on the bicentennial of the Constitution American citizens will continue to enjoy their full constitutional liberties. I am making a profoundly conservative paint that both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, should resist any and all attempts to weaken or dilute the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It protects freedom of speech, of the press, and the right to petition. Above all, it is the guarantor of the individual citizen's freedom of conscience, and of the separation of church and state. Like millions of deeply religious Americans, I believe in a strict construction of the First Amendment. I believe that the First Amendment means what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The intent was not only to prevent organized religion from dominating from interfering with the individual citizen's right to worship God as he or she chooses. Assaults upon the First Amendment may take many forms: for instance, there is the recently debated proposed school prayer amendment. There is no power on earth which can prevent a person of faith from praying in school or anywhere else. In fact, as Congressman Charles Rose once said, "As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public schools." Along with many main stream religious leaders, however, we have deep concerns about state-prescribed and state-composed prayer in the public schools. Another threat comes from the host of proposals to declare the United States a "Christian" nation, as if there is a uniformity of belief among Catholics, Protestants, and believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and as if Jews and other members of minority religions are something less than first-class citizens. The "Christian Nation" movement is part of a frightening new development in our national life -- a misuse of religion for narrow political ends. Some critics claim that it is inappropriate to mix religion and politics. That claim, like the counter argument that religious leaders have a right to speak out on political issues, is often designed to end the discussion. We are interested, however, in discussion, and to that end People For has just published an issue paper entitled "10 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics" by Jim Castelli. Mr. Castelli is the Washington Bureau Chief for Our Sunday Visitor, the largest U.S. Catholic weekly, and author of a syndicated religion column. I would like to read from "10 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics," because the points it makes address directly the matter before the subcommittee today. The same Almost everyone mixes religion and politics to some degree. values that shape political beliefs also shape theological beliefs. Theologian Harvey Cox says "it is impossible to separate religion from politics because it is the same people who are both political beings and religious beings." And, in fact, barring political debate based on religious beliefs would violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. What is needed, then, is not more pious rhetoric about mixing religion and politics, but guidelines as to what constitutes a legitimate mix "How-To Mix Religion and Politics." Because the people arguing the loudest about their right to bring moral issues into the political realm are often those trying the hardest to avoid any form of government regulation of religious institution, this "How-To" must also include guidelines for church-state interaction. It's particularly important that Americans find a proper mix. The American system of religious pluralism is unique; it developed largely because people fled lands where the mix was improper where religious dissent and diversity were not respected. But the same Founding Fathers who took such pains to preserve religious freedom also brought religious values to bear in shaping their new land. An analysis of U.S. history, constitutional law and political practice suggests some clear guidelines for mixing religion and politics. I. RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE ALONE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BASIS FOR PUBLIC POLICY. While morality is a legitimate element of public debate, there is a crucial distinction between morality and doctrine. Morality is generic; Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists and atheists can all agree that murder is a crime or debate the morality of foreign aid, for example, despite their religious differences. But a religious doctrine on the other hand, is acceptable only to those who share a particular faith and is not open to reasonable debate. The distinction is explained well by David Little, professor of religion and sociology at the University of Virginia. Describing the views of Roger Williams, the colonial Baptist known as the "father of American religious pluralism," Little discusses Williams' belief that "there existed an independent standard of public morality according to which governments might rightly be judged" and that "a commitment to religious pluralism must rest upon a shared belief that civil or public morality is determinable independent of religious beliefs." Little concludes that "In a pluralistic society, it is simply not appropriate in the public forum to give as a reason for a law or policy the fact that it is derived from the 'Word of God' or is 'dictated by the Bible."" Little notes that the Christian Right is inaccurate when it sees itself as merely doing what Martin Luther King and other religious leaders |