But then are accountable to the constituency back home, very similar to Congressmen.

So are American Baptists. And we indicated that out of the 117 "yes" votes, and there were two negative votes. But the important thing is that any individual Baptists or individual congregation could disagree. We do not control the congregations. We speak for the vast majority of them.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Reverend Cothen?

Mr. COTHEN. Similarly, Southern Baptists send to the annual meeting of the convention messengers from the individual congregations; 35,000 congregations, obviously not all of them participating. When you read a statement by the Southern Baptist convention, it's a statement adopted by those persons, present 14,000 in St. Louis, for example, last month. We meet annually.

This particular issue has been dealt with at least three times by this official meeting of the convention we call the Southern Baptist convention. No one speaks for the individual Southern Baptist. No one speaks for the individual congregation except the congregation, in democratic procedure speaking. And no one can speak on the behalf of others.

However, generally recognized in polity of churches, as we put it, would be the opinion of the Southern Baptist_convention often repeated as representing the majority opinion of Southern Baptists, although there will always be some dissent from that opinion expressed in that meeting gathering.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Was the majority point of view expressed by that convention on this question?

Mr. COTHEN. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this particular issue-though not in this same context-was originally spoken to by the Southern Baptist convention in 1964 in the context of the constitutional amendment. It was again addressed in 1971. It was again addressed in June of 1980, just 5 or 6 weeks ago, at our meeting in St. Louis.

Southern Baptists since the Supreme Court ruling have always, in body gathered, held to the view that the Supreme Court has not held that it is illegal for any individual to pray or to read his or her Bible in public shcools. That has been enunciated again and again.

We have also affirmed our belief, again and again, in the right to have voluntary prayer in the public schools.

However, in the latest convention, addressing itself specifically to the Helms amendment, the convention said: "Be it resolved that this convention record its opposition to attempts, either by law or other means, to circumvent the Supreme Court's decisions forbidding Government authored or sponsored religious exercises in public schools.'

We have thus affirmed our desire to see public recognition of deity with appropriate expressions as determined by appropriate authority, whatever appropriate expressions may be, of our interest in submission to deity.

The opposite side of it is we have tried to be very careful not to impose these views on minorities nor to put the country in a position where great social mischief can be done by turning decisions related to religious practices over to local power structures.

We believe the removal of the courts from the jurisdiction in that matter would deliver religious exercise to local power structures. We do not believe that's in the best interests of the country. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much for that explanation. Would you care to comment, Reverend Malloy?

Mr. MALLOY. I might say that of course Baptist churches and ministers are unique and distinct unto themselves. It's been said so often within our convention ranks, the National Baptist convention, that there is no one higher on Earth than a Baptist preacher. So naturally we don't try to speak for each and every one.

But I might try to say in terms of where the convention stands, certainly for many times, we have said that we believe wholeheartedly in the separation of the church and state, and that we would maintain this entire.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Railsback?

Mr. RAILSBACK. I wonder how the witnesses feel about a rather unusual resolution that I had forgotten was before us. But it takes a little bit of a different approach. And that is a sense of Congress concurrent resolution that says this: That it is the sense of Congress that the Constitution of the United States does not preclude periods of silence, to be used solely at the discretion of the individual student in the public schools for quiet and private prayer, meditation, contemplation, or introspection, even if those moments are supervised by a school official.

That would be-that would not be a constitutional amendment. It would be simply an expression of Congress. I'm just curious how you would feel about something like that.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would have no problem with the statement. My only worry would be the word "supervised." If that is not controlled, but simply supervised that they maintain silence and I'm sure that is the intention. If that's the intention, I don't think any American Baptist would have any problem with that statement. Mr. COTHEN. I think I would react similarly, not having an opportunity, Congressman, to study it in detail with an analysis of the language. But I believe most Southern Baptists would probably subscribe to a sense of Congress resolution in this fashion, much, much better than the removal of the courts from jurisdiction. Mr. RAILSBACK. I'm also advised that without having done all my homework, that there may be a Federal decision that permits silent meditation. Am I right? So, I'm not sure that it's needed. But what it would do is it would put Congress on record as favoring, you know, favoring that kind of-or permitting, at least, that kind of a happening.

want to thank you for your testimony. I also add, to Mr. Campbell, that I share your concern about the precedent that could be set by adopting a statute, or a law such as the Helms amendment; one that-what it might mean if upheld.

In other controversial areas, where maybe the public, at a point in time, would disagree with what has been established as the law of the land during a particular period of time. And then, not knowing what the feeling might be in a relatively short period of time thereafter, where maybe the mood of the public would change again.

So, you know, I agree with that particular thrust of your statement.

That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson?

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing and giving us the benefit of your opinion. I think the statements were excellent. Probably because I agree with them. But I have no quarrel with them at all.

I would like the record to reflect that we have to thank, among others, for this appearance, Miss June Cotton, the lobbyist for the Baptist Church, who's sitting right behind them and who brought these gentlemen to us, and who, I'm happy to say, used to be an employee of my own. She is doing as good a job now as she did. then. And that's pretty good.

As to my friend, Mr. Railsback from Illinois-Tom?
Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes?

Mr. DANIELSON. I wanted you to hear because I'm not talking behind your back, the proposed sense of the House resolution which he voiced, I would have no quarrel with the contents of that sense of the Congress resolution. But I would quarrel bitterly with the fact that we might even intrude that far into religious freedom. I don't think you can permit even the one iota of governmental intrusion into religious freedom, if in the long run, you are going to retain religious freedom.

So I point out to my good friend, Tom Railsback, that while the words he said are the words I think that we all should practice, that Congress shouldn't pass any kind of a resolution or law or anything else that impinges upon freedom of religion.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Kentucky-

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think we would agree, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note we have limited time because a vote has been called. Let me just ask a couple of quick questions.

I am sure the gentleman from Southern Baptists is familiar with Dr. McCall

Mr. COTHEN. Very well.

Mr. MAZZOLI. He's a great human being, a person in our community. Do I understand correctly that the groups he has would be allied with your convention; is that correct?

Mr. COTHEN. Dr. McCall is president of the Southern Baptists Theological Seminary which is owned and operated by the Southern Baptist Convetion. He is also presently president of the Baptist World Alliance which includes about 100 Baptist groups from all over the world, but he is a Southern Baptist, yes, sir.

Mr. Mazzoli. Is Dr. McCall personally, and he and his organizations, do they subscribe to the Southern Baptist position on the Helms' question?

Mr. COTHEN. Yes. I think unequivocally he would.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I would congratulate you on having updated your material. One problem I had with the earlier group is, although they say they are based on immutable truths that would not change in 20 years or 200 years, they have, in my judgment, not

been updated as far as your statements which were updated a few months ago, which are much more useful.

On page 4 of your testimony, you discuss the grounds that the prayers have been printed by the courts. Do you think you could sit down and develop a situation, a prayer situation, which would pass muster?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Fortunately, that's not my responsibility.

Mr. MAZZOLI. It's ours though, unfortunately.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would feel my responsibility is to critique it, not to create it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, I think the very fact that it's a difficult question to answer is suggestive of the fact that by putting those four criterion together, that you really have an almost impossible situation. The truth of the matter is that anytime you talk about saying that we are for voluntary prayer and there is such a thing as voluntary prayer in the school and trying to find examples of that elusive animal, we can't find it.

On page 8, you say "voluntary prayer is alive and well in the public schools." I wonder if you can expand on that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. On what you said, Mr. Mazzoli, for criteria, my testimony indicates these are the elements specifically excluded by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Mazzoli. That's right. Consider those four factors, try to find a situation that passes muster is extremely difficult.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then what we must do, at least, is to be sure that we don't violate the conscience of any schoolchild either in terms of forcing that child-it's a violation, I think, to force the child to absent himself or herself. Even that one, which I think-that is the only voluntary thrust that I see being proposed today, in terms of "voluntary prayer." We have voluntary prayer. But that is the socalled voluntarism.

Mr. Mazzoli. I think that part of the statement is excellent, as you sort of interpret what has been stated as voluntary prayer. I could go on. I don't have the time. I thank you, all three, and your counsel, for your very helpful testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Let me inquire of the gentleman from North Carolina, whether he would like to ask any questions.

Mr. GUDGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this panel for so clearly defining that the first amendment guarantees a guarantee of an individual's right to be free from governmental intrusion in these most precious of all our traditions and most precious of all our commitments, commitment to our religious faith.

I would like to ask one brief comment: Do you see anything wrong in allowing classes to be taught in religious history that may attract groups of one denomination or another, provided the other denominations are given an opportunity to their own enrollment in their own classes, with the idea that this might be a voluntary circumstance similar to what we might see in many of our public, higher education institutions?

Mr. MALLOY. Personally, I do not.

Mr. GUDGER. Do you see this might be a context in which the voluntarism which you have defined so well, Dr. Campbell, would find expression? An opportunity for greater fulfillment?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I could even see-I'm going beyond your question-I could even see beyond voluntarism, teaching about religion that is historic factual backgrounds with reference to religion as part of the history course or something of this type, as being required curriculum. But that's teaching about religion. That is not involvement in religion.

Mr. GUDGER. I appreciate the distinction. Do you perceive the possibility that if we carry into this context of studying a particular history or religious experience, that we might see those participants getting into activities which would not be consistent and not be compulsory.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If I understand your question correctly, I would see no problem. If I understand, you are saying that a Jewish student could demonstrate a Jewish prayer and the others are learning. But not participating. I would find no problem with this. Mr. GUDGER. Thank you very much. No further questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We thank the panel for both their indulgence and contribution to the work of this committee. And we have a vote on. We will recess for 10 minutes and, at which time, the last witness of the day will be called.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Whereupon the committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order. I expect shortly to be joined by a couple of other of our members.

The Chair would like to also announce that we have had many applications to be heard by people, organizations, that have been desirous to be heard on this very important issue. It is clear that we cannot, obviously, accommodate everybody in terms of oral testimony. We will encourage many who desire to present their point of view, to file their printed comments for the committee, and make them available, perhaps for each members of the subcommittee individually.

The Chair is disposed to have at least 2, or possible 3, more hearing days to accommodate the heavy demand for time to testify. We will do this as appropriately as we can, following the return from the recess, which the House will embark upon commencing this weekend, for 2 weeks.

After that, it may be the disposition of the committee to treat these matters before us, take some legislative resolution thereon. That is a matter for the subcommittee itself.

I say this for guidance of those, particularly those who may be disappointed in being heard. Because we will not have time for every person to be orally heard.

At this point in time, I would like to greet our last witness today who was scheduled to be the third witness and who very graciously acceded to the Baptist panel just heard. He is Meyer Eisenberg, chairman of the National Law Committee of the Antidefamation League of the B'nai B'rith and accompanied by an old friend, David Brody, who is well known to many of us here on Capitol Hill. Mr. Eisenberg, you may proceed, sir, as you wish.