Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

L-Interview of Mr. Eisuke Sasagawa on his retranslation of the grand
jury hearing of Mr. Taker 1 Kamiyama by Attorney Kinko Sato, August
25, 1984..

527

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ISSUES IN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1984

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in room SD-106, Dirksen Building, commencing at 9:08 a.m., the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Leahy and DeConcini.

Staff present: Dee V. Benson, special counsel; Randall P. Rader, general counsel; Carol Epps, chief clerk; Leslie Leap and Deborah Dahl, clerks (Subcommittee on the Constitution); and Dick Bowman, counsel (Committee on the Judiciary).

OPEN STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

Senator HATCH. Ladies and gentlemen, this hearing will now come to order. We are here in the capacity of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, to conduct an oversight hearing on the state of religious liberty in America today.

This is a subject of monumental significance to our Republic. The right of every man to be free from governmental coercion or interference in his personal relationship with his Creator is fundamental to our free and democratic way of life. Its value cannot be overstated.

As historian Sanford Cobb has so accurately observed:

Among all the benefits to mankind to which this soil has given rise, this pure religious liberty may be justly rated as the great gift of America to civilization and the world

The concept of religious freedom has been central in the political philosophy of the leaders of our Nation since the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It was significant in the 18th century debates of State legislatures and the Continental Congress, where it had the indefatigable support of men such as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and, of course, James Madison.

These debates culminated in 1789 in the passage by the First Congress of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. That amendment contains these few but well chosen words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

*

These words, clear as they may seem, have been the subject of significant, and sometimes heated, debate since their enactment almost two centuries ago. These debates have often led to lawsuits and from time to time the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to give guidance and interpret those simple words. In 1947 the Court told us in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment of religion clause means at least that:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

With respect to the free exercise clause, the Supreme Court stated in Wisconsin v. Yoder that:

Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.

In other decisions, the Court held in 1962 that a prayer composed by New York State school officials for voluntary recital in the public schools constituted an unconstitutional establishment of religion; in 1961 that Maryland's Sunday closing laws did not constitute such an establishment of religion, in 1981 that a State university in Missouri could not, without violating the establishment clause, allow equal access to a student religious group to school facilities used by other groups, and finally, in this year, 1984, and I am only hitting a smattering of the cases, that a Christian nativity scene paid for out of public funds and sponsored by a municipality does not represent an unconstitutional establishment violation.

With respect to the free exercise clause, the Court has told us that the State of Wisconsin cannot require children of the Amish faith to abide by a State law requiring attendance in a formal high school until age 16.

Where these judicial interpretations have left us in law and practice in 1984 is subject to legitimate differences of opinion. Much has been and is being written on the subject of religious liberty in America. On the one hand, there are those who suggest that for all our efforts the first amendment, in both its establishment and free exercise clauses, has been misinterpreted and misapplied. On the other hand, there are people who feel that the religious freedoms contemplated by the Founding Fathers are, for the most part, being fully protected.

Perhaps it is best for us to look upon this extended dialogue over the precise meaning of the first amendment as evidence of a healthy and enduring Constitution. This subcommittee hopes it means at least that. But this subcommittee is also aware that in the minds of some, the present climate for religious liberty in America is not all it should be.

By any standard of measurement, there has been an alarming acceleration of disputes between American citizens and Government officials over the proper role of the Government in the affairs of churches. Just to mention a few of these disputes, we have recently seen a minister and others sent to jail in Nebraska for refusing to obey a court order which they feel, rightly or wrongly, is against their religious beliefs; we have seen a private religious university lose its tax exempt status, rightly or wrongly, because of the school's racially discriminatory admission standards; and we

« AnteriorContinuar »