times of crisis. This is an expression of a non-denominational, non-threatening civil religion. Americans aren't threatened by a politician's private beliefs; non-Baptists weren't offended when Jimmy Carter taught at a Southern Baptist Sunday school while president. But a public official who asks people to believe in the Bible or to do something because it is commanded by "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" has stepped out of bounds.

President Reagan's frequent use of "we" to refer to Christians and "they" to refer to everyone else sends a message to "non-adherents." In fact, his identification with a narrow, fundamentalist view of Christianity sends a message that even Christians who don't share that view are "non-adherents."

X. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR GOD.

The rhetoric of the Christian Right is full of references to America as a "chosen nation" or "the New Israel" and to "God's will." For example, Jerry Falwell has said, "God has called me to take action. I have a divine mandate to go right into the halls of Congress and fight for laws that will save America" and "Our battle is not with human beings, our battle is with Satan himself. The real conflict is between light and darkness, the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ."

President Reagan has tried to sidestep the issue by saying "I've said that we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is, are we on His side?" This statement is merely a bit of casuistry which still conveys the belief that the speaker is, in fact, "on His side."

The question of claiming to speak for God also comes up when religious leaders endorse political candidates. A minister has the same freedom as anyone else to endorse a candidate as an individual, but it's unacceptable to imply that an endorsement speaks for all Christians or reflects "God's will."

The Christian Right and its supporters argue that religion is an integral part of society and that both believers and religious institutions

have certain rights. They do

but they also have responsibilities,

including playing by the rules.

The First Amendment is the basis of so many of our liberties, that what begins as an assault upon religious freedom ends up as an assault upon all our freedoms. In recent years, political extremists have claimed a religious justification for censoring school textbooks, purging

library bookshelves, and restricting students' rights to learn, teachers' rights to teach, and every citizen's right to speak freely. And that's only the beginning. In this century, we have learned of the horrors that can begin with book-burning and implicit attacks uopn minority religion. Lurking behind the assaults upon the First Amendment is an attack upon the America we love -- a melting pot; it is a rich mosaic of all the world's peoples, cultures, and faiths. From this diverse population is drawn the strength and hope of our country.

For nearly 200 years the First Amendment has safeguarded the basic rights and liberties of the American people. Under its wise provisions both personal liberty and a rich diversity of religious beliefs have

flourished.

It is as precious to our future as it has been to our past.

The way of the First Amendment remains the American Way.

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Congressman Buchanan.

I have appreciated the testimony of everybody here today and we will make sure that all statements will go into the record as though fully delivered. Let us just ask a few questions to you panel members.

I would appreciate it if you could keep your remarks brief, but make what you feel are significant remarks.

Generally speaking, what can a government or, in particular, our Government, do in advance that does not violate a person's religious freedom rights?

Dr. Kennedy.

Dr. KENNEDY. James Madison said that the Federal Government does not have the shadow of a pretext to intermeddle in religion, and I believe that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution that the Federal Government be kept out of religion. And that would include, I believe, the courts as well as the Congress. Now, what we have had is the Congress has abstained from passing laws but the courts have entered into the legislative field and have, in effect, legislated against religion by their various decisions.

As you know, 8 of the 13 States that founded this country had established religion when the constitution was passed and it was not the intention of the first amendment to in any way restrict religion. The real purpose I believe of the first amendment was not the separation of church and State but rather the separation of the State from the church. And there is a vital difference between those two concepts. As you know, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments were demanded by the people_because_they were afraid of the powers newly bestowed upon the Federal Government and they wanted to protect the rights of the people. Therefore, they were one-way streets. They placed shackles upon the hands of the Federal Government and restrained them from restricting the liberties of the people, principally the No. 1 right that they protected was the freedom of religion, the first part of the first amendment. Now, what has happened is that the shackles of that first amendment have been taken off of the hands of the Government and have been placed upon the church. And I would call into testimony the fact that in the last 5 or 10 years, 98 percent of the time that you hear the statement, the separation of church and State, what was being discussed was not what the Federal Congress can do or not do, which is what the first amendment talks about, but it was always what the church can do or cannot do, what a church school can do or cannot do, what Christian clergymen can do or not do or even what Christians can do or cannot do.

So we have now totally reversed the intention of the first amendment. The original intention was to restrict the Federal Government. It has now been turned around so it is continually being used to restrict the rights of religious people and it is being used diametrically opposite to its original intention.

I do not want to do away with the first amendment. I would like to do away with these ridiculous and ludicrous interpretations of it that are totally anithetical to its original intention.

Senator HATCH. Thank you.

Dr. Titus.

Dr. TITUS. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not say that the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. President Lincoln learned that lesson well in his debates with Douglas over the Dred Scott issue. He did not accept the Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as the supreme law of the land. Rather he went to the Constitution itself, as a candidate for office and then later as President of the United States, to decide for himself what his constitutional duty was to be.

Too often, I believe, in this Senate, the House of Representatives, and also in the executive offices, Members of the bodies believe that they are bound in their legislative capacity by the opinions of the Supreme Court even when they disagree with them. I believe that you have a constitutional right as well as a constitutional responsibility to examine the text of the Constitution, to look at its language, to decide for yourself rather than to just simply think that the Supreme Court has decided for you as to the meaning of such precious liberties as the first amendment. Let me give you an example.

In the first amendment, the word "religion," if you go back into history, means the duties that we owe uniquely to our Creator as contrasted to those duties that are owed to Caesar. You do not see that concept in any Supreme Court cases today. They simply ignore such language.

Therefore, they are not paying attention to the specific language nor the intent of the Constitution. You need not act that way.

I would suggest to you that if you go back you will find guidance from such men as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to deal with the questions that you have before you.

Senator HATCH. Dr. Hill.

Dr. HILL. I would say, No. 1, do not be afraid of the religious community. The heartbeat of America, the thing that is holding us together at the grassroot level, with all due respect to you gentlemen, is not the Congress of the United States. It is what is happening up and down the streets and on the corners to various religious activities. It is the constant encouragement of the preacher, the rabbi, the priest of telling people to go the right, to keep the hope, to be loyal to God and country. And there is some kind of fear that is loose in this country that the aggressive religion push that is going on is somehow deterimental to this country and thus prayer groups like in Pasadena, neighbors who just wanted to gather and have prayer together, were taken to court and told that they could not even have neighborhood prayer meetings. And yet that same house could have a dance all night long and there is no law against that at all.

So do not be afraid of what religion is doing.

Second, do not let government through all of its various subcommittees and bureaucracies and departments and agencies, including the Internal Revenue, build all of these fences to progress that we can make as religious people because they come in and tell us what we must do as nonprofit corporations. They do not even consider the fact that we are of God.

Senator HATCH. Congressman Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think government has the right and, indeed, the responsibility to protect the basic individual rights and liberties of American citizens and to ask American citizens that they comply with the reasonable requirements of law. It seems to me the Government can do that whether or not those individuals have on a religious cloak. It seems to me that where an entity in the name of religion is violative of either law or the rights of American citizens, then the Government can legitimately act in such case.

Senator HATCH. Let me ask each of you: Do you feel that religious freedom rights are afforded the same degree of protection by the enforcement agencies of government as other civil rights, ranging from freedom from race and sex discrimination, for instance? Shall we start with you again, Dr. Kennedy, and then go across. Do you understand my question? We raise-Congressman Buchanan raised the issue of race discrimination, now of sex discrimination, we have other rights that are held inviolative in this country.

Do you think that religious freedom rights are elevated to the same status?

Dr. KENNEDY. No, I do not. I believe that the attention of the country has been directed at various times in its history to certain problems that the society has raised: The problem of slavery, 100 years ago, the problem of discrimination in recent decades.

That same sort of attention has not been focused upon religious rights and perhaps today is a very signal turning point in that failure to direct the attention of our country to this problem.

I think that the number of cases of prosecution and persecution that have been described today bear testimony to the fact that religious rights of citizens are being trampled in the mud in many places in our country. Things which were unthought of a decade ago are taking place, such as the horrors that we heard about in Nebraska and in California and other places in this Nation.

But I am optimistic that with such hearings as these and with the opportunity of airing these problems before the American people I believe in the American system-that justice and freedom for all will prevail. And I think one of the greatest dangers is the suppression of the expression of religious views on religious liberty which has taken place too often in our country and which this is a notable exception to today. I think that the outcome will be salutory.

Senator HATCH. Thank you.

Dr. Titus.

Dr. TITUS. I believe that one of the fundamental errors today in the question of protection of religious freedom is viewing religion as a narrow claim. What I mean by that is that so often people think that churches have a claim that other people do not have, because they do not identify with a church. But religion is much broader than churches. It is even much broader than people who even identify themselves as religious people.

Let me give you an example. When Thomas Jefferson spoke against tax-supported schools in Virginia, he was not just concerned about government control of opinions about who Jesus Christ is, but he was also concerned about government control of what good physics is or what good mathematics is. That is, the