Mr. ROBERTSON. I am sure that would be true. My friend has phrased it rather dramatically, but it comes down to that. The Court gave them equal status.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. I read a portion of the first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Mr. ROBERTSON. That does not say "the States." It says "Congress." And "establishment" meant "a national church."

Mr. TALMADGE. Exactly. I should like to get to the word "religion." Did the framers of the first amendment to the Constitution ever contemplate atheism as a religion?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They certainly did not. They repudiated it.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. Did the Senator draw the same conclusion from the decision in Engel against Vitale that I did; that the Supreme Court had set up atheism as a new religion, which was to be considered along with the Methodist, Baptist, Judaist, and Catholic religions, and that one was coequal with the other?

Mr. ROBERTSON. When I first read the decision, that was what I feared. But Justice Black had a footnote in his majority opinion which gave the Court an "out." Mr. Justice Clark in his speech in San Francisco hinted that the Court's decision should be interpreted narrowly. So I would not be too dogmatic in saying exactly what they intended. I know what the logical consequence would be if we were to follow the advice of Mr. Justice Douglas. That is what we must guard against.

Mr. TALMADGE. If we shall construe the decision in the light in which it was reached, it could be held, in view of the fact that atheism is to be considered a religion, that a prayer to Almighty God discriminated against atheism, and that therefore it would be violative of the first amendment. Is that not a conclusion to be drawn?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion that denies God. Buddhism is a religion. Mohammedism is a religon. Shintoism is a religion. There are many religions. Of course atheism is a religion. The Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity. They have a religion.

Mr. TALMADGE. But it was not considered as a religion within the meaning of the "establishment" clause of the first amendment, was it?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The purpose of the first amendment was that Congress should make no law to establish a church.

Mr. TALMADGE. Exactly.

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is what was meant.

Mr. TALMADGE. I share the Senator's view in that regard.

I have read some of the Senator's magnificent speeches and writings on this subject. I have been privileged to read the address which the Senator is giving today. Anyone who reads that document with a fair and open mind can draw no other conclusion than that the Supreme Court in its decision has distorted the intent of the framers of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I thank my friend. That is what I hope to prove by the time I have finished my prepared address.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield to my friend from North Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. I should like to determine whether the Senator from Virginia would corroborate my understanding of the history which ultimately resulted in the first amendment.

Is it not true that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the great leaders of the movement in Virginia to put an end to the state church in Virginia?

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is true. Jefferson framed the bill. He encountered so much opposition from the rich landowners in the legislature that he could not have it passed. After he had gone as our Ambassador to France, Madison got the bill through for him.

Mr. ERVIN. Is it not true that what we now know as the statute of Virginia for religious freedom was in large measure the handiwork of Jefferson?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, it was. Like James Madison and George Mason, Thomas Jefferson was a leader in the struggle for religious freedom.

Mr. ERVIN. Jefferson was so proud of his part in the authorship of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom that when the time came to propose an epitaph to be engraved upon the stone which would mark his grave he made a reference in that epitaph to the fact that he was one of the authors of the Virginia statute for religious freedom. He preferred to have that fact remembered about him, rather than to have it remembered that he had been twice elected President of the United States.

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is true. He wanted to be remembered for that. He wanted to be remembered also as the founder of the University of Virginia and as the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from Virginia if among the most eloquent words in the statute of Virginia for religious freedom are not these words, in substance : "To compel a man to make contributions of money to the dissemination of opinions he disbelieves is sinful and tyranical."

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from Virginia if he agrees with me that that expression was perhaps the central theme of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and if that does not manifest an unalterable desire on the part of those who authored the statute to put an end to to the practice of using tax money to support religious institutions?

Mr. ROBERTSON. There is no doubt about it. We find that fully set out in what we know as the "Memorial and Remonstrances" of James Madison. Patrick Henry had argued for passage in the Virginia Legislature of a tax bill to support teachers of the Christian religion. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, insisted that we must never use tax money to support a church or any activity of a church; otherwise, we restrict freedom of religion.

Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Virginia agree with me that the history of the first amendment shows that James Madison, who is so often fittingly called "The Father of the Constitution," should be given credit above all other men for the inclusion of the first amendment in our Constitution?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not think there is any doubt about it, because he prepared the Bill of Rights, the essence of which was adopted by the First Congress. I plan to discuss at some length the proposals dealing with religion. Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. Did not the colloquy in the First Congress between James Madison himself and Representative Huntington, of Connecticut, demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that the purpose of offering the amendment was to prohibit a national church and the choice of one religion above another?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Absolutely. When I reached that portion of my speech, I shall give the Senator the exact language as taken from the records of that period. I went to a great deal of trouble to document my speech. If we go to the original sources and are willing to be bound by them, we cannot escape from the fact that the Supreme Court in the New York case misinterpreted the first amendment.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. In a moment, when I finished my colloquy with the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Virginia agree with me in the conviction that the purposes of the first amendment, insofar as it relates to religion, were identical with the purposes which Madison had in mind when he piloted the Virginia statute for religious freedom through the Virginia Legislature?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The first amendment prevented the establishment of a na-tional church; the Virginia statute of religious freedom prevented the establishment of a State church.

Mr. ERVIN. In other words, fundamentally the provision was designed to prohibit Congress from establishing an official church, and to prevent Congress from using tax money to support religious institutions.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Congress may pass no law respecting a religious establishment.

Mr. ERVIN. It was also to make certain that a man should have the right to attend the church of his choice or to refrain from attending any church if he so desired.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The first amendment left the States free to legislate as they chose in religious matters. Virginia set a fine example by becoming the first State to offer complete separation of church and state and complete freedom of religion.

Mr. ERVIN. In the light of the controversy which was engendered by Patrick Henry's proposal that a tax should be imposed for the support of religion and that the taxpayer should have the privilege of designating what religious institution should be the beneficiary of his tax, and the opposition of Madison to that proposal, does not the Senator from Virginia agree with me that the establishment clause of the first amendment was designed not only to prevent the passage of laws to maintain one religion, but also was passed to prevent the imposition of taxes to support all religion?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The Federal Government must not appropriate funds to subsidize a church or to a church activity.

Mr. ERVIN. That being true, does the Senator from Virginia agree with me in the thought that the bill which was passed through the Senate for the aid of all institutions of higher learning, and which was so phrased as to permit aid to be extended to church-controlled and church-owned institutions, was clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I did not favor the bill. There were some Senators, however, who attempted to draw the distinction between aid to individuals and aid to religious institutions. The Senator from North Carolina and I thought it would be more fundamental to hold that Federal taxes were not to be used as a subsidy for any church activity. We would be safe to follow that conclusion to the end. Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I agree that the attempted distinction was a distinction without a difference.

Mr. ROBERTSON. We admitted that there was an attempt to make a distinction, but we did not accept the distinction.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS. I commend the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his presentation today. It is supported by a great deal of study, research, reading of leading cases, of history, and of the debates. He is making a great contribution. His sincerity of purpose and his fundamental belief make his work that much more worth while.

I especially commend the distinguished Senator for placing in the Record yesterday in the Appendix, on page A3690, a letter which I have read since coming into the Chamber. The letter is from Mrs. Floyd Gibson, of Covington, Va., on the effect of the Court decision.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The letter was written by the teacher of a primary school in the little town of Covington. It was written the day she read about the decision. It came from her heart. I was very much touched when I read the letter and, therefore, had it printed in the appendix yesterday. I would have no objection at all, if my friend from Nebraska thinks it should be made a part of the body of the Record, to have it printed at this point.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter appearing on page A6390 of the Record of yesterday be printed at this point in the Record. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

JUSTICE BLACK,
Washington, D.C.

COVINGTON, VA., June 26, 1962.

DEAR SIR: I have been a schoolteacher in rural Virginia for many years. I have seen all kinds of "isms" come and go. I never could have lived through the hectic days successfully if the children and I had not met together with our Father at the beginning of each workday to thank Him for His care and to ask Him to bless the day and help us make it a good one.

As a result of such beginnings, the days went more smoothly and the children seemed happy, too. Over and over it happened that if we had a rough day it would be found that for some reason we would have had to omit the morning prayer.

There is no greater beauty to be found in the English language than is to be found in the majestic words of the Bible. First Corinthians, chapter 13 is a masterpiece that has never been matched by any writer since St. Paul was inspired to record those words for us. Repeatedly I have seen the great words of John 14 bring a changed expression to a troubled little face. Small shoulders

might be drooping when those words were repeated just before heads went down on desks for a moment of silent prayer which was to be closed by all the class praying the prayer that was given to us by our Lord. When the quiet moments were ended, and faces were lifted, hope and cheerfulness were written where the troubled expression had rested.

I tell you, sir, I have had the very words "get out your Testaments" bring quietness into a whispering, moving class during the first moments after the bell, while I was checking the roll, taking up the milk money, the cafeteria money, the ice cream money, and any other money that always takes time of the elementary teacher on every weekday morning in our schools. Just holding a well-worn Testament in his hands, or loafing through its pages, seemed to bring serenity and stillness to the child. A schoolchild today needs such moments to himself ahead of the busy hours that lie ahead.

I have never felt resentful because of the ruling on segregation. I know that the public school teacher will have to bear the brunt of the burden of adjustment when it comes to all of us. I have felt that it is just another challenge to us to do our best, always keeping in mind that it is the children, only, who matter.

Immortal souls are more important than all the politics of administrations and governments. Schools have to clothe many children. Schools have to give vitamin pills and do anything else for the children that the parents fail to do. At least that is the way it seems to me. Then, on the side, the schools even see to it that an education is given to meet each child's individual differences insofar as is possible in this day of heavy loads and many problems, while an ever-increasing number of parents spend textbook money on whisky. Isn't soul salvation more important than these other services?

What of the child who never sees the inside of a church? Would the Jews and Unitarians and the others like them have said anything if they had known of the children of their faiths who were being deprived of the right to offer a simple prayer acknowledging the greatest of God who created our beautiful world, and then sets us in it to live and enjoy the life that He gave to us? It seems to me to be a simple matter of good manners, if nothing else, to send up a sincere "thank you" as we hurry through our day.

I believe that God can, and will, work out a solution for us so that we can safely emerge from this muddle of world problems and politics into which we, small, unassuming people, have been shoved. The Supreme Court that we trusted to keep us and our ideals safe, has today added to the muddle and the noise and confusion about us. You men charged with this great responsibility have done what you could to make it easier for our youth of the last half of this 20th century to grow into godless adults by tying the hands of the public school teacher who wanted to do something about this condition of our times. You, and we, may have to live under a government run by these children. Do you think you will like that living?

Most sincerely,

A. RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

Mrs. FLOYD GIBSON.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, Justice Stewart stated in his dissent in Engel against Vitale :

"What is relevant to the issue here is *** the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and officials of our Government" (id., "Dissenting Opinion," p. 2).

He went on to say that he did not consider the voluntary recitation of a simple prayer recognizing God to be any violation of the first amendment.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. Does the Senator have the so-called regents' prayer before him so that he can read it?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have it before me.

Mr. TALMADGE. As I recall, it was a 22-word prayer.

Mr. ROBERTSON. It reads:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. What religion does that establish?

Mr. ROBERTSON. It does not establish any religion. That is merely a religious exercise on a voluntary basis. The prayer affirms that there is a God and asks He help us. That is all it does.

Mr. TALMADGE. Does not an established religion have to have faith, prayers, and beliefs, for example?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Of course.

In America there are certain denominations or sects the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Catholics. They have certain beliefs, creeds, and ministers. The regents' prayer applied to all.

Mr. TALMADGE. Is there anything in that 22-word prayer that could be offensive to a Protestant?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Certainly not. Protestants believe in God.

Mr. TALMADGE. Is there anything in that prayer that could be offensive to the Methodist Church?

Mr. TALMADGE. Or to the Catholic Church?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Do not the Catholics and Jews believe in God too?

Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator has anticipated my question. Is there anything in that 22-word prayer that could be offensive to any religious church that he knows of anywhere in America?

Mr. ROBERTSON. It could not. It could not be to any Jewish synagogue or to any Catholic church or to any Protestant church.

Mr. TALMADGE. Does the Senator share my view that it could be offensive only to an atheist or agnostic?

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is right. That is the danger. The Court's decision leads us to a denial that we are a religious nation.

Mr. TALMADGE. Does the Senator know of any other major power on the face of the earth, outside the Iron Curtain, which has gone to the extent of outlawing belief in a supreme being?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not. So far as the countries behind the Iron Curtain are concerned, it is part of their political doctrine to deny God, the Bible, and all religious principles. They do not want to be bound by any religious principles. We do not trust the Communists because they are bound by no moral principles and believe in no hereafter.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. Do jurors in Virginia, in Federal and State and municipal courts, take an oath?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They do; on the Bible.

Mr. TALMADGE. To whom is the oath addressed?

Mr. ROBERTSON. To God.

Mr. TALMADGE. If it is not addressed to God, to whom can it be addressed?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not know.

Mr. TALMADGE. Does the President of the United States take an oath?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. We saw him take an oath on the Bible in 1961.

Mr. TALMADGE. To whom is it addressed?

Mr. ROBERTSON. To God.

Mr. TALMADGE. If it is not addressed to God, to whom can it be addressed? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is the point. If we take God out of government, what do we have left to stand with?

Mr. TALMADGE. Do the Justices of the Supreme Court take an oath?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Their bailiff opens the term calling on God to bless the Court.

Mr. TALMADGE. Do they take an oath of office?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes.

Mr. TALMADGE. To whom is it addressed?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They take an oath on the Bible, and the oath is addressed to God. When we take our oath in the Senate, we say, "So help me God." We not only take it, we sign it. I have one of those documents framed in my office, because I like to remember that I took an oath to uphold the Constitution.