Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the Court has given to the first amendment. For certain, this doctrine as applied to the States by means of the 1st and 14th amendments should be no broader than it was originally meant to be as it applied to the National Government.

As to its actual intent, Story further contended that the "no establishment clause," while inhibiting Congress from giving preference to any denomination of the Christian faith, was not intended to withdraw the Christian religion as a whole from the protection of Congress. He said:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of State policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Cooley's interpretation of the establishment clause is as follows: By establishment of religion is meant the setting up or recognition of a state church, or at least the conferring upon one church of special favors and advantages which are denied to others. It was never intended by the Constitution that the Government should be prohibited from recognizing religion * * where it might be done without drawing any invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, organizations, or sects.

*

These characterizations of the true meaning of the first amendment by renowned and respected scholars in the field of constitutional law apparently mean nothing to the Court today. It has a long and tortuous path from the decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut to Engel v. Vitale.

The basic constitutional principle involved has been stretched beyond the wildest imaginations. It is incumbent upon Congress to express itself as a body in disapproving of this decision.

This decision is dangerous enough as it applies only to the narrow question which was presented to the Court. However, the far-reaching effects of it when it is used as a precedent for future decisions is even more alarming. As has been the case so often in the past, I fear that Justice Douglas' far-reaching and unprecedented concurring opinion will become the law.

Should this occur, many well-accepted and time-honored observances will become unconstitutional. This includes the practice of beginning each day's session in both Houses of Congress with a prayer, the recitation of the beautiful prayer by the Cadet Corps at the U.S. Military Academy, the practice of opening each day's session of the Supreme Court with an invocation, the required impression "In God We Trust" upon our coins, congressional action in appropriating for Chaplain's Corps for the different branches of the armed services, and many other observances too numerous to mention. Extended to its illogical conclusion, this decision could result eventually in wiping out every official recognition of the Divine Being.

This would be tantamount to finding in the Constitution a requirement that the Government show a callous indifference to religious groups, a thing which Justice Douglas himself, in the case of Zorach v. Claussen, said could not be done. He further stated:

That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

It would be, in effect, the establishment of atheism as our officially recognized religion.

This is the problem with which we are squarely faced. The people of this country have made known their disgust with this decision and by so doing have reaffirmed their faith in and allegiance to the Supreme Being.

I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence opposing this decision and requesting that some action be taken to rectify the matter. This is indicative of the fact that the United States of America is a country firmly established on a rich heritage of religious principles.

It is now our duty to take official action in expressing the sense of the Congress on the matter. In addition to this, steps must be taken to avert what could occur should this decision be even more broadly applied in the future.

I urge this committee to adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 81. And again I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Senator JOHNSTON. I am glad that we were able to stay and hear my colleague testify before we finished for today. Are there any questions or comments?

Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have one comment upon that decision of the Supreme Court. I know that it is quoted in full at the outset of this record, but I would like to ask leave to read part of one sentence from the majority opinion.

Mr. Justice Black is describing the emotions which caused Europeans to come to this country originally and he said they

** came to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose.

I think that all of us want to do our utmost to make sure that is the kind of society we maintain and that when we talk about changing the first amendment let us recognize we are talking about something that has taken us a long way for a long time and we would be wise to consider most critically any change that is proposed.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Senator wants any comment or not.

Senator HART. No. I am sure the Senator from South Carolina agrees that that was the motivation, and that that motivation and that tradition ought to be preserved.

Senator JOHNSTON. I think we all believe in prayer when we please and to the God of our faith, and there is no question as to our rights there.

Senator HART. But we do not ask anybody else to join us.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is true. I am sorry the question has come up and I hope that none of us gets so heated about some particular issue that we will lose our way, so to speak, and and not do justice in this field.

The committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

[blocks in formation]

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Present: Senators Hart, Dirksen, Keating, and Scott.

Also present: Senator John Stennis; Senator A. Willis Robertson, and L. P. B. Lipscomb, member, professional staff.

Senator HART. The committee will be in order.

First, I should indicate that the distinguished chairman, Senator Eastland, had planned and had anticipated being present and acting as chairman of the hearing this morning. However, he was called to an executive department not many minutes ago. For that reason he will not be able to open the meeting and may not be able to return in time to participate.

This hearing is a resumption of the hearings on several resolutions relating to prayers in public schools which have been offered.

Before hearing our first and very distinguished witness, the committee is delighted that two senior and effective Members of the Senate who have a keen interest in this matter before the committee, an interest which they have expressed in testimony at our first hearing, are present this morning.

We are glad to welcome the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Stennis, and the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robertson. If they have any supplemental or annexes that they would like to file to last week's testimony, we would be glad to have it.

I do hope the gentlemen will be able to stay with us and participate in the discussion as we go along.

Senator Robertson?

STATEMENT OF HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I have read the statement to be made by Bishop Pike. He suggests an amendment to the Constitution which would clarify the meaning of the first amendment so as to prohibit the enactment of a law that would recognize any particular sect or denomination or religious organization as the established church of the country and at the same time to permit the Government to recognize the existence of God. That is all I am interested in and I think the bishop has proposed the best wording. I

49

am inviting the help of the outstanding constitutional lawyers of our Nation to suggest wording that will preserve the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state and yet throw a roadblock in front of the Supreme Court, if its intention be, as indicated by Mr. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion, to take us down the broad highway of secularism until, from a religious standpoint, there will be no material difference between our Government and that imposed upon the Soviet Union by the Politburo.

Senator HART. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Stennis?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN STENNIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional argument to make today.

But I want to point out that Bishop Pike's statement here today as well as one made on previous occasions when he made a speech on this subject contains what I think is a very practical and a highly desirable suggestion wherein he has spelled out a proposed amendment to the first amendment to the Constitution in which he would define just what the wording in the first amendment means when they refer to the establishment of religion.

The bishop's definition of what he would substitute there is in his statement today and, of course, I will not anticipate his presentation of it except to say that I join with him in commending to this committee that what he has to say be incorporated in the amendment that I proposed.

Senator HART. Thank you, Senator Stennis.

Our first witness is a very distinguished American, the Rt. Rev. James A. Pike, bishop of the Episcopal diocese of California.

Senator HART. I should emphasize that Bishop Pike is a lawyer, a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bishop taught for 5 years in the field of church-state relations at Columbia University Law School as adjunct professor of religion and law while dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City.

After admission to the California bar, the bishop received his doctorate in the field of Federal procedure at Yale Law School.

Here we have the very unusual combination of lawyer and churchman, a man whose willingness to participate in not always uncontroversial public questions has not gone unnoticed.

The committee is most appreciative, sir, that you would take the time to give us your views.

As the Senator from Virginia has indicated, you have a prepared statement and I hope you will feel free to read it in any manner you choose, interrupting yourself, adding comments as you go along. Please feel free to present your statement in any form.

« AnteriorContinuar »