Now, every nation is going to be based upon one or the other of these: theism or antitheism. We find antitheistic nations such as Albania and the Soviet Union today which formed their laws upon an antitheistic base. We have this conflict which is taking place in America today. I believe that many people do not realize that this is the underlying cause for the amount of religious persecution that is now taking place.

All legislation is based upon morality. It is a lie which says that you cannot legislate morality. The truth is you cannot legislate anything but morality. We have laws against stealing and murder and rape because it is immoral to do those things.

Legislation is based upon morality; morality is based upon a theistic or antitheistic concept. Secular humanism has its whole ethical or moral agenda, which includes such things as abortion, suicide, euthanasia, free divorce, gambling, homosexuality, and many other ideas which had been historically repugnant to the moral standards of traditional Americans. They are busily engaged in forcing those views upon the American people, the very thing that they accuse us of doing, through legislative enactments. Already a great deal of their agenda has been enacted into legislation.

One of the means by which they have been doing this is through a distortion of the first amendment. I do not believe that the first amendment is dead, but I believe that it has been seriously distorted in our time.

For example, we frequently hear substituted for the first amendment the cliche of the separation of church and State or the wall of separation between church and State. The American Constitution does not teach the separation of church and State. It is however explicitly taught in the Soviet Constitution, article 52, which states that the church and the U.S.S.R. shall be separate from the state and the school from the church. But the American Constitution does not teach that.

The idea of a wall of separation between church and State derives from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in which he made the statement that there should be a wall of separation. The first amendment was a one-way street. It simply restrained the powers of the Federal Government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;" Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It said nothing about what the church or clergymen or Christians or believers of any other sort should do or should not do. A wall, however, restricts people on either side of the wall equally.

The idea of a free press is also a one-way street. It was that the Government should not interfere with the press, but if we said that there should be a wall between the State and the press, then we could prosecute the press every time it transgresses that imaginary line which, of course, would be the destruction of a free press. This is precisely what is happening in religion today. I am dismayed that we have no more time to discuss the underlying ramifications of these particular issues that we have heard today.

Senator HATCH. I am also, but I will be happy to keep the record open so that you can submit additional information to us. We will be happy to have that, Dr. Kennedy. We apologize that we are always pressured around here.

[Material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D. JAMES KENNEDY

There are today several ominous movements going on in America and in the Western world, for the most part undetected by Christians, which I think portend great evil for the Church unless we understand them and do something about them. There is, first of all, a tremendous change that is coming about in the relationship of the Church and the state in America. It is happening so slowly that we are like that frog sitting in the pot of warm water which is gradually being heated to the boiling point. The frog just sits there and is slowly boiled to death. Like the frog, we do not even perceive what is happening! We have today, dominant in this country and accepted by 99% of the people, a view of the relationship of church and state which is almost diametrically opposite to that which was taught by the founding fathers of this country and which was expressed in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Yet, how many people are aware of that. If it goes unchecked much further it will, as it is beginning to do right now, bring about the destruction of the liberties of Christians in this land!

Does the First Amendment teach the separation of church and state? I venture to say that 95% of the people in America today have been brainwashed into the place where they would say 'yes.' But it does not! I think it is vital that we understand what the First Amendment to the Constitution says, because the relationship between these two 'kingdoms' has been a long and difficult one. The founding fathers of this country, I think, resolved that question in a marvelous way but it is being completely destroyed in our time and most people are not even aware of it. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Question: What does that say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does that say about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? What? Absolutely nothing! It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It says nothing about the Church! The First Amendment teaches the separation of the state from the Church. Well, where did we get this idea of a 'wall of separation between Church and state'? That does not come out of the First Amendment. That comes from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. He said, there should be "a wall of separation between Church and state." Now, what is the difference between that and the First Amendment?

Our religious liberties depend on a proper perception of the difference between those two things. The First Amendment is a one way street. It restrains the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was written to restrain the Federal government from interfering with the liberties of the people, because they were afraid that the people of this new country would not accept the new Constitution unless the rights of the people were further defined and protected. "A wall of separation," on the other hand, is most emphatically a two way street. It prohibits and restrains those on one side of the wall equally as much as it restrains those on the other side of the wall. Now we have a two way street. But in the last several decades what has been happening? It has been turned around until now we again have virtually a one way street moving in the opposite direction, so that 98% of the time in the last year (ask yourself if this is not true) when you heard the phrase 'separation of Church and state' what was being discussed was: What the Church shall or shall not do. That's 180 degrees off from the First Amendment of the Constitution! Now the Federal government is unshackling itself from the First Amendment, and the shackles are being put on the Church! Our freedoms are in grave jeopardy today and we sit like the frog in the pot as the water heats up.

Another ominous tendency is seen in the silent legal revolution going on in the Western world today. How many times have you heard it said that you can't legislate morality? Hitler was right! You can tell the big lie so often and so loud that people will come to believe it! "You can't legislate morality!" Like the separation of church and state, I am sure that the vast majority of Americans would say to that statement, "Of course you can't!" But I would simply like to ask this question, my friend: "If you can't legislate morality, pray tell me what can you legislate?" Immorality? The fact of the matter is that you cannot legislate anything but morality! We have laws against murder because it is immoral to murder; we have laws against stealing because it is immoral to steal; we have laws against rape because it is immoral to rape. This country's legistative enactments were founded incontrovertibly

upon the Judeo-Christian Ethic of the founding fathers of this country. Even Thomas Jefferson, who certainly was the least evangelical of the founders of this country, said in his Charter for the University of Virginia, that the proofs for God as the sovereign Lord and Creator and Ruler of this world and of the moral requirements and obligations which flow from that, must be taught to all students. The legislation of this country was based upon Christian morality as revealed in the Word of God. This is where we derived our morality. However, for the last four decades we have seen in this nation that the Christian morality is slowly being replaced by the secular humanist morality as the foundation for legislative enactments. When that substitution is complete you will find yourself living in an America very alien from anything that you have known. When all of their so-called ethical agenda has successfully been transformed into legislation this will be a different country than ever it was before. Such things as abortion (and you might consider the degree of success which they have already had), infanticide, homosexuality, free divorce, euthanasia, gambling, pornography, and suicide are simply a portion of the ethical agenda of the secular humanist, along with the total complete removal of every single public vestige of Christian faith and religion and belief in God that has made this country great. That is their agenda and they are eagerly and determinately and assidiously engaged in enacting it as the foundation of this country's legislation under the false teaching that the government of the United States is supposed to be neutral concerning God. They are taking the concept that we are not to have an established Church and moving from that to the concept that the government is neutral concerning God.

That is a concept which is worse than heathenism because even heathenism is based upon the belief in some deity! All government is based upon some religious or anti-religious system. What that means for us today, I think, is a very serious matter. This nation was never meant to be neutral toward God. James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, said that we cannot govern without God and the Ten Commandments. Now the Supreme Court, in its great wisdom, has said that the Ten Commandments cannot be put up on the walls of the schools of Kentucky - yet they are carved on the walls of the Supreme Court building! And the man who wrote the Constitution that they are interpreting, said that we cannot govern without them!

George Washington said it would be impossible to govern without God and the Bible. The founders of this nation never intended for this to be a nation which was neutral toward God. They did not hesitate to call upon God. They did not hesitate to mention God in their public utterances and in public buildings. They did not hesitate at all to make mention of Him or offer thanksgiving to Him for His goodness and providence; or to set aside special days of praise and prayer and thanksgiving to God, or establish chaplaincies for the Senate and House of Representatives and the Armed Services.

Now we are moving irresistibly toward the Soviet-Communist concept of separation of Church and state, and that is very very dangerous. The Soviets pride themselves on the fact that they believe in the separation of Church and state, and America is moving rapidly to adopt their view. What is their view? It is simply this: the Church is free to do anything that the government is not engaged in and the government is engaged in almost everything! Therefore, the Church is free to stay within its four walls, pray, and sing hymns, and if it does anything else it is in big trouble.

That is what is happening in America and, unfortunately, many churches and pastors and Christians are accepting it and even defending it!! It is the same sort of defeatist approach that we have taken toward the containment of Communism for the last forty years; that is, we have adopted the Communist view of our government toward religion. Remember what they said? The Communists said that what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. And now that is what the government is saying! They are saying, What is ours is ours and it is political; therefore, it is out of bounds for you. And what is yours is negotiable because what is religious today and spiritual today may be political tomorrow when we rule it to be legal. For example: abortion, homosexuality, suicide, or anything else. When that happens, it is like the churches in California who were asked to sign statements, such as: Have you made any statements in the past year concerning such political matters as abortion, homosexuality, etc. What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable and we're going to negotiate you right into a little tiny closet! American Christians are sitting around just letting it happen, like the proverbial frog. And do you know why? Because we're afraid

we're afraid of the flack; we're afraid of the controversy. We've run and we've hid under our beds. We've forgotten the words of Scripture: "Fear not." Gentlemen, if you are going to be leaders, one thing that is called for is courage. I want to tell you, the secular humanists have declared war on Christianity in this country and at the moment they are winning the

war.

Humanism is a religion. This is declared nine times in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, and in the second Humanist Manifesto in 1973. It is declared repeatedly that it is a religion. The dictionary declares it to be a religion. The secular humanists declare it to be a religion. The Supreme Court in "Torcaso v. Watkins" has declared that secular humanism is one of the several non-theistic religions operating in this country. You don't have to believe in God to have a religion, Buddhism is non-theistic, as is Taoism, as is ethical culturism -these are some non-theistic religions, according to the Supreme Court. Yet secular humanism with its tenets of atheism, evolution, amorality, socialism, and one world government, is taught in virtually all the public schools of this country. Therefore, secular humanism has become an established religion in this country over the last several decades, primarily through the work of such men as John Dewey and other signers of the secular Humanist Manifesto. It has become the established religion of America. Last year $31 billion plus was spent by the Federal government on our public educational system with its establishment of the religion of secular humanism. The Supreme Court has declared that our schools cannot teach any religion, yet the same Supreme Court has declared that secular humanism is a religion!

Senator HATCH. Dr. Titus, let us go to you and take your testimony at this time.

STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT W. TITUS

Dr. TITUS. Mr. chairman, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, as Dr. Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out, we are at war over religious freedom in America, and it is a war between two faiths. On one side of the battle are those who believe that our constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are God given, fixed and governed by the words and intent of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution of the United States and of the 50 States.

On the other side are those who believe that our religious freedoms are "man" invented, evolving, and authoritatively defined by the judges who sit on the highest courts of the land.

While the major battleground is in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have heard testimony that the war is from coast to coast. But on each battleground, we who cherish the liberties of our forefathers are fighting on two fronts. On one front we face an enemy who, in the name of separation of church and state, seeks to exclude religion totally from the public affairs of the Nation. For example, a recent editorial in a major newspaper has criticized President Reagan for a speech in which he called the American people to return to the religious faith of our Nation's founders.

This front has been extended from the news media into the courts with the recent effort by the ACLU and others to stop this Congress and the President from proclaiming 1983 as "The Year of the Bible." While this particular effort has not met with success, the same protagonists have successfully won the fight in the courts to keep the Bible as the Word of God not only out of the public school classroom but off public school grounds almost altogether.

In the name of freedom from the establishment of religion, these enemies of true religious freedom call for total exclusion of religion