laws of the State of Maryland, because it based its decision, not upon principles of religion and morality, but upon economic and social principles. It has outlawed reference to God in an official oath prescribed likewise by the State of Maryland. It has gone far toward the outlawing of all teaching of religion in the public schools under the release-time plan whereby religion is taught not by the teacher but by pastors of the children in attendance upon the schools. It has now outlawed the recitation of a simple prayer as a part of the opening exercises of the public schools of the country. There is pending before the Court and will be decided in the fall term a case dealing with the reading of the Bible in the public schools and also dealing with any religious exercises whatsoever, such as Christmas and Thanksgiving. In view of the fact that the School Prayer case was decided by a 6 to 1 majority, it is easy to see that the exponents of this atheist philosophy will make virtually a clean sweep in establishing in our governmental system all of the atheistic principles of Ingersoll and his associates.

It would seem that it boils down to a question of whether our Government in all of its facets must be absolutely neutral as to all religious beliefs, nonChristian as well as Christian, and even neutral as to those who profess atheism as their creed. If the Supreme Court is headed in the direction of making all phases of the Government absolutely neutral as between professors of Christianity, and those who believe in God, as against those who are antagonistic to and would destroy these beliefs, a Christian people, and others who hold to the Christian-Judiastic teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, should recognize that fact and do what they can to counteract it in such manner as will enable them to preserve Christianity, as being the basic ideal in our way of life. All would agree that no governmental agency should be allowed to discriminate in favor of any religion or be in any manner circumscribed in maintaining absolute freedom of religion within the terms and meaning of the Constitution, bearing in mind always, that this is a Christian nation and that was one of Christ's teachings.

That we are not dealing wholly within the realm of speculation and something that probably will never happen is shown by the concurring opinion of Justice W. O. Douglas. He and Justice Black who wrote the majority opinion of the Court have been yoke fellows in much of the liberal philosophy developed by the Supreme Court. Apparently the other five of the majority of the Court were not willing to go as far as Justice Douglas wanted to go and he wrote a separate concurring opinion, but they did not oppose his view. He pointed out that the entire State and Federal Governments are honeycombed with church financing, and among these, he listed government aid to religious related institutions, including reduced postage rates for religious publications, compulsory chapel attendance at the armed services academies, all income tax deductions for church and charitable institutions, the use of "In God We Trust" on the coinage, and the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

He further chided his brothers of the Court for opening the Supreme Court sessions with a prayer which closed "God save the United States and This Honorable Court." He also referred to the opening of Congress with prayers, the opening of the legislatures with prayers and there is a broad implication in his dissent that anybody on the public payroll of either the State or Federal Government should be forbidden to utter a public prayer, because to that extent the Government is financing a religious exercise.

Under this view of the case, President Roosevelt when he led the Nation in a nationwide radio prayer to God for guidance during some of the stress and strain of World War II violated the Constitution of the United States. Also, it will be recalled that President Dwight D. Eisenhower after he had taken the oath of office invited the audience and the Nation at large to join him in a prayer to God for guidance and for His protecting care for his administration. Of course, many other instances may be pointed out where the Presidents of the United States engaged in prayer and other activities that would be calculated to influence the people at large in their religious thinking and religious activities. Chancellor Kent who had been chief justice of the Supreme Court of New York and who wrote "Kent's Commentaries" was probably the greatest lawyer that America has produced. In the case of Lindenmuller v. People (33 Barb (N.Y.) 548), he made this striking statement illustrating how far the Judges of our present Supreme Court are now departing from the principles laid down by those who founded the Republic. He said:

"It would be strange that a people, Christian in doctrine and worship, many of whom or whose forefathers sought these shores for the privilege of worshiping God in the simplicity and purity of faith, and who regarded religion as a basis of their civil liberty, and the foundation of their rights, should in their zeal to secure to all the freedom of conscience which they valued so highly, solemnly repudiate and put beyond the pale of the law, the religion which was dear to them as life, and dethrone the God, who, they openly and avowedly profess to believe had been their protector and guide as a people."

One of the landmarks of the U.S. Supreme Court in elucidating the doctrine of separation of church and state, and showing that a recognition that belief in Christianity and God was at the very foundation of our Government and that the recognition of this fact did not do violence to the doctrine of separation of church and state, was the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, decided in 1891 (143 U.S., p. 457). The opinion was written by Justice David J. Brewer and was concurred in by every member of the Court. It said: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or National, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of the continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation."

And again, after enumerating the many, many instances where the Government recognizes the Deity and the permeation of the entire American people with religious sentiments, the opinion proceeds, "There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings or declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find in the case of Updegraph v. Commonwealth (11 S. & R. 394), it was decided that "Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; not Christianity with an established church and ties and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And further after an extended enumeration showing that this whole Nation was founded on and was permeated by belief in God and the principle of Christianity, the Court makes this declaration :

"These, and many other matters which might be noted add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation." Of course, if it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States for schoolteachers and officials to lead the children in a simple prayer such as that given above, it might be lawfully made a criminal offense, and the ridiculousness of the situation can only be imagined by such a law having been passed and some dedicated schoolteacher being prosecuted for leading her children in the utterance of the simple little prayer above stated.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties."

And again in the second inaugural address, he said, "That this Nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Calvin Coolidge said, "Whatever inspires and strengthens the religious belief and religious activities of the people, whatever ministers to their spiritual life is of supreme importance. Without it, all other efforts will fail. With it lies the only hope of success. The strength of our country is the strength of its religious convictions."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt in addressing a session of Congress on nazism and fascism which were threatening to engulf Europe, said:

"An orderly society which relegates religion, democracy, and good faith among nations to the background can find no place within it for the ideals of the Prince of Peace. The United States rejects such an ordering and retains its ancient faith.

"There comes a time in the affairs of men when they must prepare to defend not their homes alone, but the tenets of faith and humanity upon which their churches, their governments, and their very civilization are founded. The defense of religion, of democracy, and good faith among nations is all the same fight. To save one, we must now make up our minds to save all."

On and on we might go, quoting from the leaders who have made this country great, all to show that the Supreme Court has made a most radical departure from the course on which this Nation was set by its Founding Fathers.

The decision must be interpreted in the light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of New York reported in 191 NYS, 2d, page 453. The school authorities were following the same practice of opening their schools with prayer for 120 years. Strange that none of the great lawyers of that State, such as Root, Hughes, and Cardozo, saw fit to try to stop such an illegal practice.

In 1951, the board of regents, corresponding to our State board of education, recommended that the little prayer in controversy be said in connection with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, "as an act of reverence to God."

The school board of New York adopted the recommendation in 1958, but unfortunately worded their resolution in mandatory terms with the statement "that the regents' prayer be said daily in our schools," with the direction "to the district principal that this be instituted as a daily procedure to follow the salute to the flag."

We think it fairly evident that the school board as well as the Court recognized that a prayer could not be forced on anyone as an officially directed prayer, compulsory on all. Looking at the 120-year-long history of prayers in New York schools, and the numerous rulings thereon to the effect that they could not be required either in recitation or attendance, it is unthinkable that the school board ever intended it other than as permissive. At any rate the Court held: "That while the board may authorize, it may not require the saying of the prayer in question, but that if it does so, it must bring the authorization to the attention of the parents of children in the schools, establish a procedure for excusing nonparticipation, not only from saying the prayer but from the room, if they so elect, and take affirmative steps to protect the religious freedom of both nonparticipants and participants" (id. 463).

Now this is in strict accord with the century-long policy of New York, and it is the policy outlawed by the Supreme Court. A lot is said about the prayer having been composed by governmental officials. The record doesn't say who composed it. The regents merely recommended it. But suppose they did. Are we going to say that the prayers of Presidents Roosevelt and Eisenhower above referred to were unconstitutional merely because they were composed by the highest officials?

The Court says its action is not hostile to religion. The Court must expect the American people to interpret this statement in the light of its action in the Everson, McCollum, Sunday Closing, Official Oath cases, all pointing to the fact that the Court is going in the Ingersoll direction.

The decision of the Court may be a blessing in disguise. It may be that it will stir the people of this Nation to reexamine its foundation and cause a rededication to the principles which have made it great. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a short but unanswerable dissenting opinion which we would do well to study. It may point the way. That a reversal of the Court's opinion is not impossible is shown by the case of Gobitis v. West Virginia. There the Supreme Court had held that a little child of the Jehovah Witnesses might be expelled from school because it refused on religious grounds to salute the flag as a part of the school exercises during World War I.

There was one lone disssenter in that case, the eminent Justice Harlan F. Stone, who later became Chief Justice. He stood out against every member of the Court in showing that the decision was wrong and abridged the child's religious freedom. A few short months worked a great change. One of the Justices died; others changed their opinions, and within a little more than 1 year the same question came before the Court in the case of Barnett v. West Virginia, and this time the Court reversed itself and followed the dissenting opinion of Justice Stone. Let us hope that the storm of opposition in this case may persuade the Court to reexamine Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion.

If the Supreme Court continues to travel the pathway of Bob Ingersoll and his associates as outlined above, we do not doubt that it will cause a tremendous increase in parochial schools of all of the denominations and that they will grow to the extent of possibly undermining the public school system itself. Having their children grow up in humble recognition of the existence of an all-powerful Supreme Being who directs all of our ways of life is something dearer to the people than even the public school system itself.

Mr. DowDY. I hope and trust, and, I dare to say, I pray that this honorable committee will take early action in the premises, that our children in our schools may again be permitted to voluntarily participate in uttering a prayer to our Creator.

Senator HART. Congressman, again the record will show the interest that you have shown here.

May I ask, in your district, are there prayers in a school?

Mr. DowDY. I, of course, have about 100 school districts in my district, but if there is one of them that does not use a prayer sometime during the day I am not aware of it.

Do I make that clear? If there is one that does not use a prayer, I am not aware of it.

Senator HART. How is the choice made? What are the mechanics? Mr. Dowdy. Well, it will vary from school district to school district. Some of them, the uttering of a prayer is done among the schoolchildren. Others are rotated; ministers from the town coming into the chapel service and sometimes the teachers themselves will do it. There is no set rule for that.

Senator HART. Thank you very much, Congressman Dowdy.
This concludes the list of witnesses to be heard today.

The committee will adjourn until the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON, MEMBER OF Congress, 16TH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to contribute a statement for the record. I wish, at this time, to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Hon. Eugene Siler, Hon. Clifford G. McIntire, Hon. O. C. Fisher, and Hon. Victor Wickersham.

As one of the sponsors of the proposed Christian amendment, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee in 1954, and which has been introduced in this Congress by nine Members from eight different States, I would like at this time to again urge upon your committee that they favorably report this measure.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 25, 1962.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: Pursuant to request from your committee that I testify, personally, before the committee in behalf of my House Joint Resolution 770, I am enclosing a statement which I would appreciate if you would have inserted in the record of the hearing on this issue brought forth by the decision of the Supreme Court to ban prayers in public schools.

I am, unfortunately, unable to attend in person, as I am leaving this afternoon for Nevada, and expect to be gone for about a week or so, for I would most certainly have liked to present my views in support of my resolution personally.

With kind regards, I am,

Sincerely,

WALTER S. BARING, Congressman for Nevada.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WALTER S. BARING IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 770

On June 28, I introduced House Joint Resolution 770 to amend the U.S. Constitution so as to allow prayers to be offered in the course of any program in any public school or other public place in the United States, in opposition to the recent decision by the Supreme Court to ban prayers in schools.

Although over one-third of the world's population may be enslaved to communism, there is no reason why America should ever fall under its domination. We are told in the Scriptures that "one with God is a majority"-our Nation, under God, has the power to withstand and overcome the enemy, if our people will arouse themselves, and if they will rise to the occasion.

Through praise and thanksgiving to God for the blessings which we now enjoy, through faith in the promises of God to His people, and through courage to act upon these promises, we have the mightiest weapons known to man to bring about our deliverance. Herein lies our strength and our protection, faith in God is America's secret weapon, and it is a defense which cannot be equaled by the efforts of a godless enemy.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., July 25, 1962.

DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: I am enclosing a statement which I would like to have included in the hearings before your committee on Thursday, July 26, with reference to the recent Supreme Court ruling on prayer.

With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

J. FLOYD BREEDING,
Member of Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. FLOYD BREEDING, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my appreciation to this distinguished committee for arranging these hearings on a number of resolutions which have been introduced as a result of the Supreme Court decision of June 25, holding that the use of voluntary prayer in the schools is unconstitutional, especially if those prayers were suggested by a board of education or other State organizations. I wish to speak briefly in regard to a proposed Christian amendment to the Constitution which I have introduced, along with a number of other Members of Congress from both Houses.

The amendment reads as follows:

"SECTION 1. This Nation devoutly recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Saviour and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God.

"SEC. 2. This amendment shall not be interpreted so as to result in the establishment of any particular ecclesiastical organization, or in the abridgment of the rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech or press, or peaceful assemblage. "SEC. 3. Congress shall have power in such cases as it may deem proper to provide a suitable oath or affirmation for citizens whose religious scruples prevent them from giving unqualified allegiance to the Constitution as herein amended.” The addition of this amendment would put our Nation on an undeniable Christian foundation, and when the Supreme Court would be called upon to make decisions, such as in the New York School case, there would be no question.

This proposed amendment has been introduced over 40 times in the last several Congresses; at least 10 times in this 87th Congress. A hearing was held in the Senate on this bill in 1954, and it received favorable action from the Judiciary Committee, and was referred out to the floor for discussion and action. Due to the shortness of time before adjournment, it was not brought up on the floor. In the House there has never been a hearing, though a hearing has been called for, and urged by many interested Congressmen and citizens of this country.

The importance of this resolution, the need for its adoption, is seen in the way our Nation is more and more divorcing God from everything that has to do with the state, yet the state is just as much an institution of God, as is the church, or the home. The state is not a stock, or a tree, or an animal. It settles moral