« AnteriorContinuar »
doesn't mean that a shrinking minority, yea, a persecuted minority-private, religious educational institutions in this country--should not be heard from and their position should not be considered. I can find no logic to the reasoning that says when one little segment of a private institution is a beneficiary of some small amount of Federal financial assistance, the whole institution should be entangled in a web of legal and bureaucratic controversy in order to correct a single violation of a single Civil Rights regulation.
On this point, although there has been some assurance by the proponents of this legislation that tax exemptions and tax deductions would continue to be excluded from the definition of Federal financial assistance, I can tell 'you from experience that the bureaucrats will find some way of changing that law through bureaucratic interpretation and through the implementation of public policy against conservative institutions across this nation. The Supreme Court, in the Bob Jones University case, has already ruled that tax exemption constitutes Federal financial assistance.
This august body is considering legislation that could be catastrophic. The passage of this Bill could strike the death knell for all private institutions as we have known them in this nation. The passage of S. 2568 could very well destroy the pluralism that has made this nation great. Unless some of the nebulous language which is contained in the Bill at this time is tightened, so as to require pinpointing of the termination of funds, and so as to limit the ultimate reach of the regulatory authority of Federal Bureaucracies from entrapping private citizens as ultimate beneficiaries of Federal financial
assistance in extended litigation, then this Bill could be the death of
the private free enterprise system in America. Democracy in this land 'has survived more than 200 years because of pluralism, because of diversity, because of dissent, and, yes, because of non-conformity to some of the half-baked ideas cooked up in Washington.
My reading of the Commentaries on S. 2568 convinces me that the obvious result of its enactment would be an immediate extension of Federal regulatory power with regard to age, sex, handicapped, and
race discrimination to virtually all of the activities of every state and political subdivision in the land.
I think it has been conceded by the proponents that aid to a State Government would bring all counties, cities, villages, school districts, and every other local sub-unit of government under the control of the Federal bureaucracy. Simply because the State receives a single Federal grant, automatically all of its sub-units are brought within the coverage of age, sex, handicap, and race discrimination statutes and regulations.
The broad and almost unlimited scope of this new enforcement power for the Federal bureaucracy was accurately described in the Wall Street Journal of May 23, 1984, by Chester B. Finn, Jr.:
"In short, assistance of any kind
applicants with heart conditions." I do not think this Committee should favorably report this Bill until the questions about the spending of Social Security checks and the use of Food Stamps in the "Mom and Pop" grocery stores have been satisfactorily answered. To me, the definition of the words "recipients" and "transferee" raises innumerable possibilities of government regulation of heretofore private, non-government entities.
Perhaps the following may seem at this time to be so far out as to deserve no consideration; but knowing how the IRS usurps to itself most outrageous powers, I feel the injection of a hypothetical question is entirely warranted. Suppose an employee of the IRS donated to his church by endorsing over to it the check from the IRS representing the return on his personal income tax. Is there not a possibility that the IRS could hold that this was a primary or secondary government benefit and proceed against that church?
I am equally concerned about the question of whether or not unintentional racial or sexual discrimination should trigger the possibility of private law suits against private entrepreneurs who never intended their actions to be discriminatory. Of course, this raises a question of whether the new law would regulate intentional discrimination or use the so-called "effects test."
I plead with this Committee to have all of these questions answered clearly and without equivocation before this BW reaches the floor of the Senate. Of course, this question is also complicated by the coverage of the BW for indirect aid as well as direct assistance. All of these things create the possibility of an insurmountable mountain of litigation which, in and of itself, threatens the very exdstence of many institutions in this country.
Maybe I should conclude by quoting something which has been quoted a number of times already, the statement by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried in his testimony on May 30 before Senator Hatch's Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution in which
Professor Fried said of S. 2568:
This B represents our legislative
Members of this Committee, I could talk for hours from experience that the American people are just about fed-up with over-taxation, over-regulation, and the legal plunder that is represented with this kind of legislation.
I respectfully suggest to you that if most of the kinds of legislation which have been passed in the name of Civil Rights, except that which is aimed at specific acts of intentional discrimination, were put to the American people in the form of a referendum, the overwhelming majority of Americans would vote to repeal much of this legislation.
In conclusion, I simply ask you to consider: 18 the means as laudable as the end? I hope you believe as I do, and as do most Americans, that the end does not justify the means.
TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN D. STANARD III DIRECTOR, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, NATIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
SEN. ORRIN HATCH AND THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
I am Rev. John D. Stanard III and the Director of the newly formed Church of Scientology, National Public Affairs Office located here in Washington, D.C. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the important topic of religious liberty and I offer what I believe is a unique perspective which my Church has on these matters.
Religious Liberty brings back vivid images of the Children of Isreal driven into the desert for forty year's seeking a promised land and suffering privations of magnitude in order to obtain that promised land.
Religious Liberty brings to mind the fight that Christ had bringing his wisdom to earth when he had but 12 followers, one of whom betrayed all of the rest. The State assisted in his crucifixion.
In America one can find the attacks on the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who were ordered exterminated by Governor Boggs. Their founder Joseph Smith was slain by assassins bullets and the State sanctioned the action. A people were driven from their homes that they had salvaged from swampland and made fertile and they were driven out and went to the land of Deseret in Utah.
In the 1950's our religious beliefs and practices came upon the forefront of American thought. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion, published his first work on the mind and spirit of man, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The book offered a new approach to many of the ills and aggravations of man based on the mind and spirit. Almost immediately Hubbard