« AnteriorContinuar »
ka on July 2, but what I have to say, I guess, is already much E the public record out there, and we are not involved in a jurs se. with a criminal trial at this point.
I had mentioned before that you have two basic Nebras the licensing of teachers and the licensing of schonis SE me been resisted by Christian pastors in the State.
The State's obligation was to prove that it had a State interest in imposing these laws on religious ministries are the schools had the obligation of proving that they were mere ligious ministries, and I think the church carried its burez State did not carry its burden, but a great wat z e was that no real expert testimony was introduc e seca education, I mean real expert testimony.
Also, there was a failure to raise certer Sr More issues.
Now, that being the case, the Supreme Court r eme the case as it found it, judged on the recort I TE judged adversely to the church. This case THE Supreme Court of the United States, not permet C the Court summarily affirmed, meaning Í F S : even though the strongest inference is not is not made after full briefing and oral argumer.
Nevertheless, it was an affirmation art tiorari. That left the situation in Nebrasis down at the bottom of the judicial beam s tempt any pastor who was violating we the law of the State.
This whole misfortune in which te tinued in prosecution. There here process of law in the enforcement am not been the chance that ought to me a proper trial of the issues so that would prove beyond a shadow of tion and licensing schemes de educational quality. But all ka.
And I realize that tocar utes. These will possible moot, or it may not. Be
ng think it is the most en
are in the country.
the Mr. TRIBE. Mr. Chair
ze a the case. First, with respect
raise important issues am
not go which I do not the Second, the te
argunot on! the rel
ed upon nnot get reasons,
cated in lockstep, as the State would conceive the ideal citizen; that, so long as minimal protections against abuse and utter illiteracy are preserved, it is the prerogrative of the family to provide educational options for its children.
Now, although it is regrettable that only the more affluent families in this country have been able, in many cases, to take advantage of that right, it is a precious right, and it is one that would be trivialized if the State's control over alternative educational institutions, whether religious or secular, were to become so total that they are simply clones, and copies of public schools.
So it seems to me important to understand the Nebraska case in its broader context—the broader context being that of imposing limits upon Government authority. It was said to be part of the mandate of the current administration to take Government off people's backs, and whatever the validity and wisdom of that mandate in the economic sphere, surely the sphere in which it has the greatest validity is in the sphere of initimate, private, human relations, and in the family.
That is why I answered Senator Leahy earlier that, although the shield of family and privacy should not prevent the State from extending a protective arm in cases of demonstrable child abuse, nonetheless there really has to be a showing of abuse. And I would say, similary, that if the State is to interfere in the decisions of communities, families and churches, as to how best to bring their children up in this complicated world, it had better have a good reason, a reason other than simply its insistence on preserving its prerogratives in the licensing process.
The third point that I wanted to make is that, although there are ominous trends in the land, these cases involving both education and taxation have created extraordinary and unexpected unities of prupose, which I think bode well for the future.
It was said long ago, by Chief Justice John Marshall, that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
We have often learned, I think to our regret, that the power to educate may also be the power to destroy. And I put the word educate in quotes.
I think the power to destroy, when wielded by an intolerant Government, generates alliances that are wholly unexpected.
In the case of United States v. Moon, for example, there were amicus briefs from distinguished public officials, not ordinarily on the same side of many issues—yourself, the National Conference of Black Mayors, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Claire Booth Luce. There were groups involved in that case who have rarely seen eye to eye on anything: The Freemen's Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Marxist League, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, the National Council of Churches, the National Evangelical Association, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. There were churches who disagree on much else, who were agreeing that there is a common national problem: The Presbyterians, the Mormons, the unregistered churches, the Baptists, the AME Zionist Church, and others. It seems to me it is cause for hope when government intolerance, and government oppression, and even government stupidity, create such powerful, and, I believe, enduring alliances of purpose. I think that this com
mittee is serving an important mission in bringing to light what many of us who disagree on so much else, have in common in this important cause.
Senator HATCH. Well, thank you.
Let me ask you one other question. I raised the-just two of the issues in the Reverend Moon case. The one that you so eloquently raised in your brief.
But the other one was the failure by the court to properly instruct the jury, and in fact, instructing the jury not to give any consideration to religion.
Do you have any comments about that?
Mr. TRIBE. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree that that was error. I believe that had the court
Senator Hatch. I think it was egregious error.
Mr. TRIBE. I think it was egregious, I think it was horrendous. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court will not tell us what it thinks; but history might.
The Korematsu case, which was decided in an outrageous and egregiously wrong way in the 1940's, was finally corrected, decades later, by the Federal District Court in the Northern District of California.
It seems to me that the books of history close very slowly on cases of great moment, and I think it is important that the last word on matters of this kind not be written until a great deal more is known.
Certainly in the case of the jury instructions, we have an egregious situation here, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals was itself divided, two to one, on the propriety of those instructions, and I think I might simply point out that if Reverend Moon should go to jail, he will be not only the first religious leader sent to prison largely because of the tenets of his faith, and the way it chose to organize its affairs; he will also be the first person in this country, in at least a quarter of a century, to be sent to jail for an alleged tax violation, where the appellate judges could not even agree among themselves as to the tax standards applicable.
I think I say nothing terribly surprising, for all of us who have to grapple with the tax system, when I observe that it is complicated enough without the threat that if some people think you violated the law, and others do not, and they are all Federal judges sitting with life tenure, you might nonetheless end up in a U.S. penitentiary. That is all the worse when the guesswork to which you are put is thrust upon you in a context as fragile and as vital as the exercise of first amendment freedoms-involving how to organize a religious community.
And it seems to me, therefore, that the problem that you raise about the instructions in this case is a problem that will not go away simply because the Supreme Court has declined to hear argument in the case.
Senator HATCH. Well, we not only have a jury trial imposed upon the defendant against his will, feeling that he probably cannot get a fair jury trial, but imposed for what really are frivolous reasons, or should I say a frivolous reason.
And then on top of that, we have a judge directing the jury itself to not give any consideration to religious reasons.
Mr. TRIBE. It does not seem like the image of fairness, does it?
Senator HATCH. Well, it certainly does not to me. I mean, I can disagree with Reverend Moon, and I can disagree with some of the tenets of his religion, and I can find fault, perhaps, but I do not care who it is, I do not care if it is the most unseemly, or despised person in our society, in this society, we should all be in the fore front of trying to protect that individual's right to have a fair and complete trial, and to have the best possible opportunity to maintain his or her freedom, and I am concerned about it.
I think it is a much bigger issue than the Supreme Court has given consideration to, and if you consider some of the points that you have made, we have a religious leader who I suppose is going to enter the penitentiary on the 20th of July, probably would have had a good chance of winning his case had either proper instructions been given to the very jury that was imposed upon him, really against his will, for a very frivolous reason, by the prosecutor, and I might add by the judge, in a case of first impression, it seems to me.
And the jury not being able to consider the most important issue involved in the case, and that is did he have the right to hold these funds and properties in trust for the church?
Maybe I am oversimplifying this, but I really do not think so.
As I read the record, I just thought that that is an extremely important issue, which combines with the other issue of his right to take the most protective way as a defendant in the freest land of all, which takes such great pains, and has from the beginning of this country, to protect the rights of the accused.
Mr. Ball, do you have any comments finally on this last point, and then I am going to let you two
Mr. Ball. I think the exclusion of the religious consideration was perhaps the most egregious error that was committed in the case. I cannot imagine what reason there would have been, I know of none, for having done that.
Senator HATCH. How could you decide a case, the holding of the church funds, without any consideration was to what that church's rules and regulations and beliefs were?
Mr. Ball. In spite of what is now possibly going to happen to Reverend Moon, we at least have one small consolation, that this was a refusal, a denial of certiorari, that is to say it was not a definitive ruling on the merits of the question raised. That is small consolation.
Senator HATCH. I think that is a small consolation, but nevertheless it is a consolation.
I want to thank both of you for being here. I know that you both widely disagree from time to time. That is what really makes this country so great.
We have remarkable minds in the two of you, who can come together as has most of the religious community, at least in some instance, with this particular case, and I might add in the case being addressed as well.
So I really appreciated having both of you here. You have added a remarkable dimension to this particular hearing. It means so much to me as chairman of this committee. I have listened to so many hours of constitutional testimony over the last 4 years, and I
do not know of any day or any particular hearing, where the Constitution and its particular applications were as articulately stated as by these two men here today.
I just want to thank you. Mr. TRIBE. Thank you for those kind remarks. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Ball. I am honored to be with Larry Tribe on this occasion, and I deeply appreciate that the hearing is taking place.
Senator HATCH. I want to get you two together on a lot of other issues.
Now, I am going to go to our final panel here today, and that is a panel of a number of witnesses who are very important to this hearing.
They are Dr. D. James Kennedy, and I would like them to take their place at the table.
Dr. D. James Kennedy, senior minister of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, FL, and president of the Coalition for Religious Liberty; Dr. Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, and president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has some 14 million members. He is also president of the In Touch Ministries; Dr. Herbert Titus, vice president for Academic Affairs of the Christian Broadcasting Network University in Virginia Beach, VA; my good friend, Dr. Edward V. Hill, pastor of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles, CA; and the Honorable John Buchanan, a good friend who is formerly a Congressman from State of Alabama, and who is now chairman of People for the American Way, he is chairman of the board. We are delighted to have you gentlemen with us today.
I will say this, that I have to limit you to 5 minutes each, so that we will have some time for questions. I have another hearing that is equally as important this afternoon, starting in just a short while.
And so we will use these bulbs up here, green means you speak, when it comes to yellow, you have 1 minute left, and red means your time is up. And I would appreciate it if you would help me in this matter.
I would prefer to have some questions before the end of the day. I understand Reverend Stanley is not here. Dr. Kennedy, let us start with you. STATEMENTS OF D. JAMES KENNEDY, SENIOR MINISTER, CORAL RIDGE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL; PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND PRESI. DENT, EVANGELISM EXPLOSION INTERNATIONAL; HERBERT W. TITUS, DEAN AND PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CBN UNIVERSITY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA; EDWARD V. HILL, PASTOR, MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, LOS ANGELES, CA; AND JOHN BUCHANAN, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be able to speak to these important issues.