PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS-FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Mazzoli, Gudger, Harris, Carr, Railsback, Moorhead, and Sawyer. Staff present: Timothy A. Boggs, professional staff member, and Thomas A. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order. I am very pleased this morning to continue the third in our hearings on S. 450 and other pieces of legislation prayer in the public schools. Our first witness this morning, I am pleased to greet, is Grace Baisinger, who is immediate past president, National Congress of Parents and Teachers. She is our first witness and we are very pleased to greet her. You may proceed. TESTIMONY OF GRACE BAISINGER, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, ACCOMPANIED BY REBECCA FISHER Mrs. BAISINGER. Thank you and good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, and I would like at this time to introduce from our Washington office, the office of governmental relations, the acting director, Becky Fisher, or Rebecca Fisher, as she prefers to be known. I have a short statement that I will read and I would like to tell you that the gremlins got to it. There are some typo errors in it so I hope you will pass over them. We do know how to spell, honest. As you have already indicated, I am the immediate past president of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, known as the National PTA. The National PTA is composed of 6 million individuals which are representative of the diverse ethnic, racial, religious, and economic populations in the United States. S. 450 was approved by the Senate over 11⁄2 years ago with the Helms amendment. The National PTA perceives the Helms amendment as being potentially dangerous and very misleading. First, the attack on first amendment guarantees: The Helms amendment would abrogate or abolish the first amendment guarantees against the establishment of religion by either the Federal Government or the States. If the Helms amendment is adopted by this subcommittee and passes the House, it would open the door for removal of other controversial issues from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Every individual is guaranteed the right of religious liberty under the Constitution and this amendment would allow 50 States to decide what constitutional rights their citizens are to have. This would also exclude unsatisfied citizens with any redress to the Federal Government. Second, balance of power: The Supreme Court would be stripped of its responsibility to interpret and review the law. Congress would then act as creator, reviewer, and interpreter of all the laws. We would no longer have a Government with three separate but equal branches. Passage of the Helms amendment would exceed the congressional power granted by article III of the Constitution. Third, misleading nature of the amendment: The Helms amendment is misleading in that it attempts to make one think that the Supreme Court is against prayer, and all parties who oppose the Helms amendment are against school prayer. The 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions did not ban school prayer, they banned State-sponsored religious exercises. Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prohibits individual private prayer by students during a school day. Quoting the Gallup poll question on school prayer is also very misleading. The question raised in the Gallup poll is "Do you favor or oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would permit prayers to be said in a public school?" This implies that voluntary individual prayer by students is not constitutional, and this is simply not the case. When the question is reworded to ask, "Are you in favor of Government sponsored prayer in schools," a small percentage of people answered yes. PTA position: The National PTA does not oppose religion or prayer. The National PTA believes that religion and prayer should be the responsibility of the family and the parents and is best addressed in the home. In 1963, the PTA Board of Manager adopted a statement endorsing the Supreme Court decision of 1962 and 1963 which found compulsory nondenominational and voluntary Bible readings unconstitutional. In the 1964 PTA Convention, delegates passed a resolution in support of the board of managers statement. In 1970, the National PTA convention delegates passed a resolution concerning teaching about religion in the public schools. In 1973, the National PTA stated to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that its legislative program clearly supported the first amendment to the Constitution as originally adopted. The PTA has periodically reaffirmed its strong position. One of the arguments used by proponents of the Helms amendment is public school students are a captive audience, they are compelled to attend school. The PTA agrees, yes, students are a captive audience, and yes, they are compelled to attend school. The PTA further believes that Government-sponsored prayer is a denial of individual choice and individual rights. One member of this subcommittee asked the difference between Congress opening each day with a prayer and public schools opening each day with a prayer. Our reply is that Members of Congress are not compelled to attend sessions, they run for Congress by choice, and that congressional Representatives are not a captive audience, they are mature adults having their own decisionmaking power and also knowledge of the ramifications of their own deci sions. School age children are not old enough to choose, neither do they fully understand the consequences of their act or the issue of school prayer. I would like to call your attention to the attached resolutions, one, "Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools"; and two, "Responsibility for Spiritual Education," which express explicitly the philosophy of the National PTA with regard to the issue under discussion today. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Baisinger and the resolutions follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRACE BAISINGER, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS Chairman Kastenmeier, members of the subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, I am Grace Baisinger, immediate past president of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA). The National PTA is composed of six million individuals which are representative of the diverse ethnic, racial, religious and economic populations in the U.S. S. 450 was approved by the Senate over a year and a half ago with the Helms Amendment. The National PTA perceives the Helms Amendment as being potentially dangerous and misleading. (1) The Attack on First Amendment Guarantees.-The Helms Amendment would abrogate or abolish the First amendment guarantees against the establishment of religion by either the Federal Government or the states. If the Helms Amendment is adopted by this subcommittee and passes the House, it would open the door for removal of other controversial issues from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Every individual is guaranteed the right of religious liberty under the Constitution and this amendment would allow 50 states to decide what constitutional rights their citizens are to have. This would also exclude unsatisfied citizens with any redress to the Federal Government. (2) Balance of Power.-The Supreme Court would be stripped of its responsibility to interpret and review the law. Congress would then act as creator, reviewer and interpreter of all laws. We would no longer have a government with three separate but equal branches. Passage of the Helms Amendment would exceed the Congressional power granted by Article III of the Constitution. (3) Misleading Nature of the Amendment.-The Helms Amendment is misleading in that it attempts to make one think that the Supreme Court is against prayer, and all parties who oppose the Helms amendment are against school prayer. The 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions did not ban school prayer, they banned state-sponsored religious exercises. Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prohibits individual private prayer by students during a school day. Quoting of the the Gallup Poll question on school prayer is also misleading. The question raised in the Gallup Poll is "Do you favor or oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would permit prayers to be said in a public school?" This implies that voluntary individual prayer by students is not constitutional, and this is simply not the case. When the question is reworded to ask, "Are you in favor of government sponsored prayer in schools," a small percentage of people answered yes. PTA POSITION The National PTA does not oppose religion or prayer. The National PTA believes that religion and prayer should be the responsibility of the family and the parents and is best addressed in the home. In 1963, the PTA Board of Managers adopted a statement endorsing the Supreme Court decision of 1962 and 1963 which found compulsory "nondenominational" and voluntary Bible readings unconstitutional. In 1964 PTA convention delegates passed a resolution in support of the Board of Managers statement. In 1973, the National PTA stated to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that its legislative program clearly supported the First Amendment to the Constitution as originally adopted. The PTA has periodically reaffirmed its position. One of the arguments used by proponents of the Helms Amendment is public school students are a captive audience-they are compelled to attend school. They should not be denied religion while in school. The PTA agrees-students are a captive audience and they are compelled to attend school. The PTA further believes that government sponsored prayer is a denial of individual choice. One member of this subcommittee asked the difference between Congress opening each day with a prayer and public schools opening each day with a prayer. Our reply is that Congress is not compelled to attend sessions, they run for Congress by choice, and that Congressional Representatives are not a captive audience-they are mature adults having their own decision making power and also knowledge of the ramifications of their decisions. School age children are not all old enough to choose, neither do they fully understand the issue of school prayer. I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY 1970 NATIONAL PTA CONVENTION TEACHING ABOUT RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Whereas, The National Congress of Parents and Teachers declares in its Statement of Principles: "We believe religion is fundamental in our American tradition as a basic factor in personal and social behavior and that every child is entitled to the opportunity to develop a religious faith," and Whereas, Thousands of homes provide neither religious experiences for the young for whom they are responsible nor opportunity for religious experience in church, and Whereas, The public schools share with the home the responsibility to provide each child the opportunity to achieve the finest possible preparation for living, and Whereas, The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States permit the study of religious and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint, presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, and Whereas, Misinterpretation of the Supreme Court decisions has caused confusion and even rebellion in many communities and schools, and Whereas, Many educators have felt it advisable to minimize or omit religious content in the school curriculum because of general misunderstanding of the purpose of such study; therefore be it Resolved, That the National PTA, its state branches, and local units develop educational programs designed to promote understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the reading of the Bible and the use of prayer in the public schools; and be it further Resolved, That the National PTA help its state branches and local units to implement such programs by supplying them information about investigated educational materials and legal programs on teaching ABOUT religion being used presently in many school systems; and be it further Resolved, That the National PTA, its state branches, and local units initiate conference and cooperation between religious and secular groups to produce intelligent action in order that every child may experience the highest advantages in character and spiritual education. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE 1964 CONVENTION DELEGATES RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPIRITUAL EDUCATION Whereas, Religion is fundamental in our American tradition as a basic factor in personal and social behavior, and every child is entitled to the opportunity to develop a religious faith; and Whereas, The home is the basic unit in the structure of our society and should be the most constructive influence in building the child's character, his sense of values, and his conception of the world; and Whereas, The church offers a way of life for reaching higher spiritual values; and Whereas, The U.S. Supreme Court, under the constitutional system of the American government, has rendered a decision regarding the reading of the Bible and the use of prayer in the public schools—a decision based on the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights; and Whereas, The National Congress of Parents and Teachers recognizes that responsibility in spiritual matters properly belongs with the home and church; now therefore be it Resolved, That the National Congress urge its members to accept their responsibility in these matters, noting that careful precept and example are necessary to foster spiritual strength and moral growth in children. Mrs. BAISINGER. I thank the members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National PTA. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Baisinger. I appreciate your statement. It is concise, to the point and very helpful. You indicated that in 1970 the national PTA convention passed a resolution concerning teaching about religion in the public schools, but you did not elaborate as to what was the thrust of that particular resolution. Mrs. BAISINGER. The resolution is attached to the testimony. The thrust of the resolution is that the national PTA supported the decision of the Supreme Court which stated that the study of religions and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint would be permitted. The resolution goes on to say that the schools were neglecting that aspect of the Supreme Court decision in not teaching about religion in the schools and that there was great misunderstanding in the country on what the decision meant or did not mean. Therefore, the resolve clauses of the resolution were to the effect that we should begin a program among our own membership and the public in general to bring about a greater understanding of the Supreme Court decision and to encourage the schools to begin to teach about religion in an academic, objective kind of way. Mr. KASTENMEIER. You cited a Gallup poll, and indeed, there have been polls put in various forms about whether or not there ought to be government sponsored prayer in the schools. Since there is a clear division among the public on the issue, has your own organization not experienced division among the tens of thousands of teachers who are associated with it? Mrs. BAISINGER. I am certainly not going to sit here and say that there is 100 percent agreement. Obviously an organization as large as ours with the diversity that we represent could not have 100 percent support for any position. However, we did achieve a consensus, a consensus as expressed through the adoption in our legislative program policy statement of a statement that in regard to the first amendment-we emphasized the support of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution as originally adopted when there was discussion some years ago of the first amendment amendments. This particular statement had to be ratified by each of our 50 State congresses, the congress here in the District of Columbia, and the European Congress of American Parent, Teachers and Students. To achieve that means that you have a broad consensus. Again, our conventions are attended by delegates representing each of the State branches and the District and European. When the delegates adopted both the resolution in 1964 that dealt with the responsibility for spiritual education, and the resolution of 1970, which dealt with teaching about religion in the public schools, a majority vote had to be obtained, and it was obtained |