Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55032626
label
School Prayer
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55032626
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
School Prayer
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55032626
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
2068127-20130534S-155-013-2022
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
968858240a280981
ocrText
Files of Melanne Verveer,
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Box 35: Files
Archived from OEOB 100 by Eric Woodard on Dec. 22, 2000
Russia
Russia
Russia
Russia
Russia
Russia
Russia - Domestic Violence
Russian Orthodox
Rwanda
Share Foundation
Sabre Foundation
Safe Motherhood
- Early Childhood Development
Safe Motherhood
- Early Childhood Development
Sarajevo
School Prayer
ENCLOSURES FILED OVERSIZE ATTACHMENTS 20051
NARA 17255
Schraser file
LEAD Us NOT INTO TEMPTATION
A Christian Case Against School Prayer
JOE LOCONTE
I
God truly answers prayers, then politicians, lawmak-
prayers or a "moment of quiet reflection" have hit a new
ers, and religious activists may soon have Him working
crescendo. At least six states-Maryland, Virginia, Geor-
overtime: Speaker-elect of the U.S. House of Repre-
gia, Mississippi. Tennessee, and Alabama-now allow
sentatives Newt Gingrich promises a constitutional
prayer or quiet reflection in class. Pennsylvania, South
amendment allowing voluntary, student-led prayer in
Carolina, Florida. and Oklahoma have considered similar
public school: President Clinton says "there is room" for
laws. Gingrich has anointed Representative Ernest J. Is-
such prayer in public education: over the last 18 months,
took Jr., (R-OK) to oversee hearings on school prayer in
school prayer initiatives have passed or appeared in at
all 50 states. anticipating a floor vote by the fourth of July.
least 10 state legislatures.
Student prayer has always been popular with the ma-
Not everyone, of course, is ready to invoke a hearty
jority of Americans: At least 75 percent consistently favor
Amen. Strict church-state separationists cite constitu-
returning prayer to the schools. What is new about the
tional objections, while religious minorities and secular-
latest surge in interest is the growing support from liberal
ists worry about coercive prayers in class. But more
politicians and black urban leaders and clergy. Prayer
surprisingly, a growing number of conservative, evangeli-
legislation recently was supported by the majority of
cal Christians are raising deep concerns about the diffi-
Democratic council members in the District of Columbia,
culties that even student-led prayer creates in matters of
including Mayor-elect Marion Barry. Democrats like Flor-
faith, conscience and civility. And the doubts and criti-
ida state Representative Beryl Burke and Georgia state
cisms are coming from some of the most influential
Senator David Scott have pushed similar measures.
quarters of this faith community-including academics,
seminary leaders, and legal scholars and activists. "It's a
THE CASE FOR PRAYER
diversion," says Steven McFarland, director of the Chris-
One of the primary arguments for school prayer is
tian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Free-
historical: American society always has been religious,
dom. "It's a diversion of our legal energies, it's a diversion
and public prayer seems an appropriate reflection of the
of our spiritual focus, and it anesthetizes the churches."
nation's emphasis on faith and religious freedom.
The modern exclusion of prayer from public schools,
NEW WAVE OF SUPPORT
say proponents, reveals a deep-seated and historically
Ever since the Supreme Court declared prayer in the
inappropriate hostility to religious belief. "Right now
public schools unconstitutional, religious conservatives
there's almost a total absence of religion in the schools,"
have been longing-and lobbying-for its return. In the
says Robert Dugan, director of the public affairs office for
1970s, school prayer was one of the issues that helped
the National Association of Evangelicals. Court rulings
propel conservative Christians into national politics. One
that remove the Ten Commandments from school walls,
evangelical Protestant leader called the Court's ban on
textbooks that delete the religious motivations of the
prayer "the darkest hour in the history of the nation." By
American Founders, prohibitions against graduation
1980, invigorated evangelicals helped elect Ronald Rea-
prayers-all are seen as attempts to purge the public
gan on a platform endorsing a constitutional amendment
schools of America's religious roots. "We need an honest
to restore voluntary school prayer. Such bills were pro-
look again at the role of faith in our history," Dugan says.
posed, but never cleared Congress, and by the mid-1980s,
A second argument by prayer advocates is theological:
states were limited to passing moment-of-silence laws.
Schools and other public institutions have a responsibility
Then came the 1992 U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Ap-
to acknowledge the Deity, because the denial of God in
peals decision allowing "non-sectarian" student-led
civic life carries profound social consequences. Evangeli-
prayers at graduation ceremonies. The Supreme Court
cals draw from the New Testament letter of Romans,
declined to review the ruling, and several lower federal
courts have issued conflicting decisions in similar cases.
JOE LOCONTE is deputy editor of Policy Review and a former
Since then, attempts to reintroduce either school
senior news correspondent for Christianity Todav.
=
Policy
OREGON
GEORGIA
STATE
WEST
IR
VIRGINIA
KNOWS
NEW
KIDS
NEED
to PRAY
LORIDA
KIOS
NEED
PRAY
KIDDRAY
The Bettmann Are Archive hive
KIDS RAY,
Demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court. Prayer advocates argue that American society has always been deeply
religious, and public prayer is an appropriate reflection of our nation's emphasis on faith and religious freedom.
which describes the moral decay that accompanies rejec-
state church, and on the other the dangers of a public life
tion of God and his moral law. School prayer "reminds
without any ideals at all."
you that the state is not the final power, but that there is
In the 19th century, Protestant evangelicals eagerly
a God above the state, and that is a very useful thing for
backed the establishment of state-run public schools—
young people to be reminded of," says Harold O.J.
with teacher-led prayers and Bible readings-largely as a
Brown, director of the Rockford Institute's Center on
way to nurture Protestant values in public life. Religious
Religion and Society.
historians like Sydney Mead even claim that public
A third rationale for school prayer amounts to plea for
schools in America took over some of the basic responsi-
civil order: It could help slow the social chaos and spiritual
bilities traditionally assumed by an established church.
decay that are infecting youth culture. "With all the
Though non-denominational in content, many of the
student unrest and violence in school, we need a little
religious practices in public education were considered
calming influence," said Bill Kron, father of two students
either inadequate or offensive to Catholic and Jewish
from Wingfield High School in Jackson, Mississippi,
audiences. Protestant hymns and use of the King James
where prayers were recently read over the intercom. "If
Bible were especially irksome to Catholics, who soon
we can stop and pray a little. the situation might be
voted with their feet: By the 1880s, the Catholic parochial
better."
school was the single most important educational institu-
tion in the Catholic community. By 1900, there were more
EVER-PRESENT DISSENT
than 3,800 such schools. Though Jews mostly sent their
children to public schools, they were deeply troubled by
The historical argument for school prayer is at once
the Protestant overtones in classrooms-including
compelling and problematic. The religious accent that
prayers in the name of Christ and readings from the New
typified much of public education up until the 1960s grew
Testament.
out of a larger cultural consensus-a generalized, moral-
"I remember from mv childhood the Jews and others
istic Protestantism. Expressed in everything from public
whose consciences were bruised by the way we Christians
nativity scenes to presidential benedictions, this Christian
presupposed a civil religion, with a pretty strong Christian
ethos formed the basis for the nation's public or civil
tone to it," says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theo-
religion. "A moderate form of civil religion emerged in
logical Seminary in Pasadena, California. Thus, even in a
America as a form of social compromise between two
society permeated by a vague brand of Protestant values,
instinctively perceived extremes," writes cultural histo-
public school prayers always had created problems for,
rian Os Guinness. "On the one hand, the dangers of a
and protests by, religious minorities.
Winter 1995
25
be extreme sensitivity on the part of the dominant major-
CONSCIENCE AND COERCION
itv that they don't trample the rights of religious minori-
The theological basis for school prayer, that disbelief
ties."
in God carries with it social consequences. finds wide-
Some prayer opponents point to the acutely peer-con-
spread agreement. "Christianity is quite crucial to the
scious climate of the classroom. With organized prayer.
morality on which constitutional and democratic govern-
students would be asked either to knowledge or ignore
ment depends," savs Glenn Tinder. retired University of
what is essentially an act of worship among the faithful.
Massachusetts professor of political science. Conservative
It's one thing for members of Congress to begin a legis-
Catholics such as former Education Secretary William
lative session with praver or for the Supreme Court to
Bennett, along with political liberals such as Yale law
open with "God save the United States and this honorable
professor Stephen Carter. echo evangelicals who link
court." But it's quite another thing for a minor, who has
social stability with belief in God.
no choice but to be in school, who is there without her
However, many of these same evangelicals doubt the
parents. who perhaps already is having trouble fitting in.
ability. and the propriety, of school prayers enlisted in this
Michael cConnell. a University of Chicago law pro-
way. Their concern is not with religious activities ruled
fessor and an evangelical who has argued religious liberty
constitutional. such as students meeting on school
cases before the Supreme Court. sees mostly trouble with
grounds for private prayer and Bible study, or student
classroom prayer. "School praver is a ven bad idea from
benedictions at graduation ceremonies. Their focus is on
an evangelical point of view," he says. "We should fight
formal. ongoing. public prayers-even when voluntary
the notion that secularism is neutral. but that doesn't
and led by students.
mean Christians have a right to dominate the message
Most of the state laws don't go as far as the intercom
that's communicated in the public schools."
prayer in Mississippi; they tend to confine organized
praying to "school events" and to hours outside the
THE MAJORITARIAN IMPULSE
regular school day. Some, however. could allow for daily,
Many prayer advocates simply disagree. Defenders of
school-wide prayers modeled on Wingfield's: "Almighty
school-wide public prayers, such as Mississippi activist
God, we ask that you bless our parents. teacher and
Bobby Clanton. argue that the majority of their commu-
country throughout the day. In your name, we pray.
nities are conservative Christians, and they should have
Amen." That prayer, even more tame than the New York
the right to decide whether and how to pray in the public
Board of Regents prayer rejected by the Court in 1962,
schools. "We're tired of yielding to a tiny minority,"
was thrown out by the school's superintendent. It is too
Clanton told the New York Times. "What about our rights?"
early to tell if the constitutional amendment sought by
This is known as the majoritarian argument: We've got
congressional conservatives would permit similar, stu-
the numbers and we can control the levers of power. In
dent-initiated prayers.
the case of Wingfield High, 490 students voted to have
the prayer read over the intercom; 96 voted against it. In
WHEN YOU PRAY, GO INTO
the South, where a Protestant ethos still dominates many
communities, the majoritarian argument seems plausi-
YOUR ROOM, CLOSE THE DOOR
ble. "People assume that Protestant consensus," says
Nathan Hatch, vice president for graduate studies and
AND PRAY TO YOUR FATHER,
research at the University of Notre Dame. "They assume
WHO IS UNSEEN."
a prayer that wouldn't offend them."
There is much to be said for communities helping to
- MATTHEW 6:6
shape the curricula and moral climate of their public
schools; however, when it comes to matters of faith, the
majoritarian impulse ignores the lessons of church his-
Many religious conservatives, however, agree with the
tory. Martin Luther's proclamation before the Roman
High Court's ruling banning state-sponsored school
Church-"to go against conscience is neither right nor
prayer, and argue that student-led prayers can have a
safe"-laid the groundwork for the Protestant insistence
coercive effect in the unique environment of public edu-
on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Many of
cation.
America's Protestant churches, of course, began as per-
Critics fear that if regular, organized public prayers are
secuted rebels challenging the culturally dominant
allowed in school, the trappings of an enforced public
Catholics or Anglicans. "The same parents who press for
religion could return to the classroom: A student recites
prayer in the South would be outraged by Buddhist medi-
a prayer, approved by a school official; the prayer is
tation in Hawaii or readings from the Book of Mormon
delivered before the class, or over the public address
in Utah," says Os Guinness. "For them to argue like
system to the entire school; a school official designates
European Anglicans [with their established church] is an
who reads the prayer; attendance is required; the stu-
exercise in historical amnesia."
dents, all minors, are asked to participate or remain
A majority-prayer rationale also fails to face the pro-
respectfully silent. 'Religious expression and dominance
found cultural and religious diversity that characterizes
in culture must be from the bottom up, not the top
national life. There are at least 1,200 organized, distinct
down," says Richard Land, executive director the Chris-
religious groups in America, many of them outside the
tian Life Commission, the religious liberty agency of the
Judeo-Christian tradition; self-proclaimed secularists
Southern Baptist Convention. "And even then there must
make up perhaps 10 percent of the population, with
Policy Review
UPI/Bettmann
Many religious conservatives argue that even student-led school prayer can have a coercive effect
in the unique environment of public education.
growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, and New Age
wrote: "Imposition, restraint, and persecution for matters
adherents. Public schools are increasingly becoming
relating to conscience directly invade the divine preroga-
flashpoints for such diversity.
tive," he said, "and divest the Almighty of a due, proper
"Many evangelicals don't realize that we are deeply
to none besides Himself."
pluralistic and that you can't turn the clock back," says
Evangelicals wary of school prayer argue that majori-
Hatch, a leading evangelical historian of American Chris-
tarian politics, when applied to matters of faith, are inher-
tianity. "In South Bend, a block from where we go to
ently manipulative. To coerce conscience-the home of
church, they've just built a mosque. That would have been
religious experience-is to invade a realm reserved solely
unheard of even 10 years ago." Princeton Sociologist
for an individual and his God. Perhaps this is one reason
Robert Wuthnow, in his book Christianity in the 21st Cen-
why Jesus, when instructing his followers about heartfelt
tury, summarizes the religious scene this way: "If there is
prayer, told them: "When you pray, go into your room,
one feature of contemporary culture that we can be sure
close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
will become even more pronounced in the future, that
(Matthew 6:6)
feature is its diversity."
Finally, the majoritarian argument strikes at the very
HOLLOW FAITH
nature of religious commitment. After four decades of
There seem to be two ways that school prayer support-
teaching and study on the relationship of Christianity to
ers can hope to avoid offending the consciences of vari-
society, Tinder concludes: "What Christianity seeks above
ous faith communities: construct a prayer devoid of
all else is faith, and faith has to be free." This is so because
controversial theology, or allow each and every faith
faith is the most intimate of matters, concerned not with
group to offer its own prayer. Both, critics say, contain
personal preference but with the moral dictates of con-
numbing contradictions.
science. And the consciences of society's most vulnerable
The one-size-fits-all approach to prayer invites at least
members-its children-require special protection, par-
two errors. The first involves the hollowing out of faith.
ticularly in a setting as volatile and influential as public
One of the most distinctive features of conservative Jews
education.
and Christians is their belief in a God who is both personal
William Penn, religious dissenter and political states-
and purposeful, one who is both merciful and just-a God
man, was one of the first Protestants in America to grasp
who can be described, known, and worshipped. A gray,
the importance of safeguarding personal religious con-
soul-less, generally accepted prayer could not possibly
viction. During his imprisonment in London's Newgate
admit most of the divine attributes considered basic to
Prison for defying the Anglican Church, circa 1671, he
Jewish and Christian believers.
"I don't know how a generic, civil. utilitarian prayer is
prayers will inevitably entangle the state in religion.
able to not offend anybody who's serious about his own
Brown expects a reasonable church-state compromise to
faith. If you get something that would not offend, then it
result: "We'll have to lock heads on this and reach a modus
has to be offensive," says Mark Noll. evangelical professor
vivendi."
of history at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, Os
However, if "student-led" prayers become a routine
Guinness. in The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and
part of public education, they could revive a mutated
the Once and Future Role of Faith, argues that deepening
version of civil religion in the schools. Many evangelicals
pluralism makes nonsense of the notion of a universally
view civil religion as a threat to religious freedom, because
inclusive faith. "For Christians who take their faith seri-
in its worst forms it allows the government to establish its
ously. such a lowest-common-denominator deity is too
own brand of "orthodox" religion, by which it judges
vague to be useful, too broad to be anything but mislead-
other expressions of faith. If school prayer proposals
ing." Prayers to such a deity, concludes Tinder, are "al-
move in that direction, large numbers of religious con-
most bound to be unitarian, not trinitarian."
servatives will revolt.
Evangelical Christians-who historically have paid ex-
"I think our society will not survive unless there is a
cruciating attention to the content of their faith-ought
broad-based religious commitment. but it is not the re-
to be among the most wary of promoting generic prayers
sponsibility of the government to promote it," says Rich-
in public education. Theology matters. because hardly
ard Land. whose 14 million-member Southern Baptist
anything influences the depth of a Christian's commit-
Convention represents the largest Protestant church in
ment more than how he or she thinks about God. Michael
America. "Anything that allows the state to sponsor
Cromartie, director of the Evangelical Studies Project at
prayer. we're going to oppose. This is not an issue that is
the Ethics and Public Policy Center, describes the effect
compromisable for Baptists," he says. Robert Booth
of such prayers in blunt terms: "Too much pabulum
Fowler, political science professor at the University of
confuses the brain."
Wisconsin and author of several books on religion and
politics, is equally pessimistic. "There's no way that the
THE GOVERNMENT HAND
other religious groups outside the Christian community
The second error introduced by universalistic pravers
are going to stand for this," he says. "And you can count
is the eventual injection of the state in matters of faith.
on no active support from the Catholic Church."
Richard Land of the Christian Life Commission and
others argue that it's difficult to escape the ultimate logic
HERE COMES MOTHER EARTH
of prayers regularly uttered in class or over a public
The other strategy for allowing school prayer without
address system: They carry an implicit state endorsement;
offending religious minorities is to permit children from
it's as though the government were teaching students
any and every faith group to recite their own sectarian
how to pray. Who, for example, will decide whether a
prayers. Supporters say this ecumenical approach would
prayer is publicly acceptable? It will not be the students;
promote understanding and tolerance of differing relig-
ious views. Critics say it is a prescription for theological
vertigo.
"I THINK OUR SOCIETY WILL
Think of it: one day a prayer is offered to Mary, the
NOT SURVIVE UNLESS THERE
mother of Jesus; another day to Gaia, mother of the earth.
That's not as far-fetched as some argue-"no with the
IS A BROAD-BASED RELIGIOUS
plurality of kids I'm dealing with," says Bill Muir, senior
vice president of Youth for Christ, a Christian student
COMMITMENT, BUT IT IS NOT
outreach group in 225 cities. It is estimated that scores of
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
new religious or quasi-religious sects appear, if only
briefly, on the nation's social landscape each year. And
GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE
Muir says he expects to see more and more signs of their
IT."- RICHARD LAND
influence in schools.
New-Age and feminist theologies, for example, already
have crept into the churches themselves. At a recent
it will be the state. Teachers or administrators will have to
religious conference in Minneapolis, participants from
approve the prayers, perhaps even help write them, as did
some of the country's largest Protestant churches prayed:
a team of lawyers for the prayer approved by the N.Y. State
"Our maker, Sophia, we are women in your image." A few
Board of Regents. "We better get out of the business of
years ago, the dean of the Cathedral of Saint John the
believing that government has some appropriate role in
Divine in New York City commissioned the composition
promoting 'God words' before that precedent is turned
of a choral mass entitled "Missa Gaia." Evangelicals fear
upon our consciences," says the Christian Legal Society's
that it's just a matter of time before similar prayers find
Steve McFarland. "When you ask the government to
their way into the classroom. Says McFarland: "In South-
engage in symbolic speech in the form of prayer, it
ern California it could be a prayer to Shirley MacLaine
necessarily compromises the religious integrity of the
for all I know."
message."
It's one thing to teach a course on world religions in
Even a school-prayer advocate like Harold Brown, who
the public schools; the context is academic, factual and
teaches theology and ethics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
impersonal. It is quite another to ask children to join in
School in Deerfield, Illinois, agrees that classroom
the prayers of religious believers of other faiths; the
28
Policy Review
setting is emotive, subjective and intensely personal. "It
sends the message to children that one prayer is as good
as another," savs the University of Chicago's McConnell.
That's simply another way of reinforcing-on a grand
public scale-cultural and religious relativism. It similarly
could undermine the religious instruction children re-
ceive at home or in church.
RELIGIOUS HOSTILITY
None of the arguments against school prayer address
the broad indifference and even hostility to religious
belief in public education. "The main problem in the
public schools and public universities is that what has
been a central part of the human story-religion-is the
one part that is missing," Fowler savs. The conservative
American Center for Law and Justice has collected at least
200 cases of anti-religious bias in public schools over the
last year:
A second-grade girl in a Minneapolis school chats with a
Archive Photos
friend about God on the playground. but is interrupted by
her teacher and told she cannot continue;
Student textbooks often omit references to significant
A seventh-grade teacher in West York. Pa. instructs stu-
religious figures, such as Samuel Hopkins, who
dents to deliver an oral essay about one of their heroes,
chastised the Continental Congress in 1776 for not
living or dead. A girl is told that her hero, Jesus Christ. is
granting constitutional freedoms to blacks.
not a suitable subject:
gelical brethren are mistaken when they insist that the
Students at the University of Virginia are denied funds for
recovery of school prayer will help slow or reverse these
a newspaper because of its religious content, while other
trends. "If we are thinking that the tide of modernity can
student newspapers receive full funding.
be rolled back by a prayer over the intercom, then we've
The anxiety over religion displayed by school boards,
taken leave of our senses," says David Wells, evangelical
administrators and teachers unquestionably has been
theologian at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in
fueled by numerous-and contradictory-court deci-
South Hamilton, Massachusetts. "If you're using it as a
sions on church-state cases since the 1960s. Many of the
means to address social ills, it's not a solution," says
rulings, evangelicals argue, ignore the constitutional pro-
Corwin Smidt, political science professor at Calvin Col-
tection of religious expression and attempt to use earlier
lege in Grand Rapids, Michigan. School prayer was not
decisions to sanitize the public schools of any trace of
the glue that held together a moral or religious consensus
faith. "Why are people nervous talking about their most
in society; neither will its return lead to spiritual or cul-
basic beliefs?" asks Wheaton's Mark Noll, author or editor
tural renewal. Fowler recalls his own experience in recit-
of numerous books on American Christianity. "The juris-
ing classroom prayers: "I don't think it played much of a
prudence has moved properly in the direction of prohib-
concrete, practical role in anybody's life."
iting coercion, but improperly in restricting
More importantly, religious conservatives ought to be
conversation." Ironically, Justice Arthur Goldberg-who
the first to raise objections when spiritual disciplines like
voted in the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp deci-
prayer are reduced to public exercises to help ward off
sion to ban school Bible readings-warned that the deci-
social ills. As these observers warn, evangelicals must not
sion must not lead to a "brooding and pervasive devotion
allow their faith to be used as a social policeman; the
to the secular," which he called unconstitutional. There
result will be the corruption and counterfeiting of their
is growing agreement among religious liberals and con-
religious convictions. "I've never seen kids involved in a
servatives that this is precisely the situation that now exists
ritual prayer, a legislated prayer where it became a deeply
in public education.
moving or growing experience," says Muir, who has been
working 'in junior high and high schools for 25 years.
CIVIC ORDER
Ironically, one of the historic traits of evangelicals is their
Religious conservatives are likewise supported by be-
insistence that prayer without heartfelt faith in faith's
havioral trends when they claim, in making a civil argu-
Author never rises above the ceiling.
ment for classroom prayer, that secular education is
The cultural, theological, and civil arguments for
doing little to arrest the pathologies afflicting young
school prayer thus all encounter perilous difficulties-
people. Since 1960, teen suicides rates have tripled, preg-
both practical and moral. On the one hand, America's
nancy rates among unmarried teens have nearly doubled,
growing cultural pluralism makes school prayer an anach-
and juveniles are the fastest-growing segment of the crimi-
ronistic proposition; it assumes a religious consensus that
nal population. On any given day, one in five kids carry a
almost all evangelicals admit no longer exists. In such an
weapon to school. Too many classrooms are indeed hot-
environment, children of minority faiths or of no faith
houses of delinquency and despair. All true.
will endure the subtle intimidation of a majority-written
However, many religious conservatives say their evan-
benediction.
Winter 1995
On the other hand. religious conservatives may find
evangelical ministers like Samuel Hopkins, who chastised
their children's religious education undercut by the sym-
all members of the Continental Congress in 1776 for
bolic power of prayer that is either diluted or anortho-
"oppressing and tyrannizing over many thousands of
dox. Even supporters admit that rote prayers run the risk
poor blacks. who have as good a claim to liberty as
of trivializing faith and religious commitment-a criti-
themselves." They're told that Benjamin Franklin was a
cism long made by evangelicals against Catholics, Angli-
deist who scorned traditional religion. but they don't
learn that this same Franklin proposed that the seal of the
American republic be a picture of Moses with his rod held
IF RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES
over the Red Sea. They don't learn that evangelical Wil-
WANT YOUNG PEOPLE TO
liam Booth founded one of the most comprehensive and
effective outreach programs to the nation's urban dwell-
APPRECIATE THE PROFOUND
ers: the Salvation Army." We need to teach good. accurate
ROLE OF FAITH IN THE LIVES
history." Tinder savs, "and good. accurate history would
bring out the fact that religion has been exceedingly
OF AMERICANS, THEY MUST
important in America from the beginning."
No Supreme Court decisions in church-state cases
HELP ENSURE THAT THEIR
prohibit the teaching of religion in the schools. In
STORIES ARE FAIRLY TAUGHT
Abington V. Schempp, the Court insisted that "nothing we
have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of
THROUGHOUT THE CURRICULA.
religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular
program of education, may not be effected consistently
with the First Amendment." The court's guidelines spe-
cans, and other strongly liturgical traditions. As Guinness
cifically allow public schools to sponsor the study of
puts it: "You're faced with a very simple dichotomy: we
religion. but not the practice of religion. Even a spokes-
either secularize or we scandalize."
man for People for the American Way, a group deeply
The combination of America's supreme commitment
suspicious of public expressions of religion, admits: "You
to freedom of conscience and its increasingly diverse
can't have an accurate portrayal of history and leave out
culture makes school prayer a hazardous object of politi-
religion."
cal strategists. "Once you admit this pluralism, solutions
If religious conservatives want young people to appre-
become very complicated, and complicated solutions
ciate the profound role of faith in the lives of so many
don't wash politically," Hatch says. "What washes in
Americans, they need to help ensure that their stories are
populist politics are simple, clear answers and this issue
fairly taught throughout the curricula. For these ne-
defies that." Wells, author of No Place for Truth: Whatever
glected stories, these parables of faith-in-action, produce
Happened to Evangelical Theology, says the evangelical at-
the stuff that world views are made of.
tachment to school prayer is the result of "intellectual
laziness" in applying biblical principles to public policy
EQUAL ACCESS
issues. "We have betrayed ourselves by looking for the
Secondly, religious conservatives must make full and
silver bullet, the one thing that's going to fix the whole
effective use of the 1984 Equal Access Act (EAA). which
sorry scheme-and there just isn't one."
requires that schools grant religious student groups the
What the difficulties suggest is that school prayer is no
same privileges as nonreligious groups. True, there are
longer an acceptable or effective dimension of public
more than 12,000 Bible clubs now meeting in the public
education-if it ever really was. This is not to say that
isolated or spontaneous instances of prayer, such as at
graduation ceremonies or following the news of an illness
PRAYER IN ANY ORGANIZED,
or accident, are inappropriate. But prayer, in any organ-
ized, public, and ongoing form is simply unworkable in
PUBLIC, AND ONGOING FORM IS
what is becoming a post-Christian nation. Moreover, as
SIMPLY UNWORKABLE IN
McFarland and other evangelicals conclude, prayer pro-
posals distract religious conservatives from more effective
WHAT IS BECOMING A
avenues of influence.
POST-CHRISTIAN NATION.
Religious believers, they say, ought to be using the legal
tools already open to them to soften intolerance of public
expressions of faith. One approach is to reintroduce the
schools, but thousands of school districts remain without
religious dimension of American life in school curricula.
them. Meanwhile, religious freedom attorneys are certain
Several important studies have documented how school
that countless students are unaware of their legal rights
textbooks deliberately exclude religious references to
to school facilities and resources-and are quickly intimi-
some of the nation's most significant figures and political
dated by overzealous teachers, administrators and ACLU
and social movements. The 1985 analysis by Paul Vitz for
lawyers.
the National Institute of Education was echoed by studies
Moreover, the act is insufficient in its scope: It only
from the liberal People for the American Way and Ameri-
applies to secondary schools and only allows student
cans United for the Separation of Church and State.
religious clubs to meet before or after school. In many
Public school children never hear, for example, about
districts, students cannot distribute religious literature on
Policy Review
wahy
Ooooh!
wah!
MRS.
JONES
12/94
original drawing by Sam Walker for Policy Review
"/ thought this was supposed to be a moment of silence."
school grounds or discuss their faith over the lunch hour.
Evangelicals who support school prayer acknowledge
However, even ACLU lawyers, who were closely involved
the crucial opportunities that both curricula reform and
in crafting the EAA, have occasionally sided with religious
the EAA offer religious believers. Dugan says that effective
students' free speech rights. The access issue could be-
use of the access law "could have far greater an impact on
come a crucial area of common ground for religious
the country spiritually than student prayers." Tom Min-
conservatives and strict separationists.
nery, vice president of public policy of Focus on the
Until the EAA and curricula reform are applied more
Family, says "that's where we think the fight still is."
vigorously, prayer opponents argue, the larger concerns
about public hostility to religion will not subside. "The
BLUNTING THE EDGES
prayer issue would virtually evaporate if the schools were
If this is true, then the evangelical devotion to school
doing a good job in these other areas," says Charles
prayer is indeed misplaced. Vacuous prayers can hardly
Haynes, visiting scholar at the First Amendment Center
undo prejudices against faith, nor strengthen the already
at Vanderbilt University. Haynes has developed school
faithful. Instead, such prayers likely would blunt the edges
curricula that teaches U.S. religious history and explores
of some of Christianity's harder truth claims. "It could
ways to publicly accommodate the nation's religious di-
undercut a radical recognition of our own sinfulness and
versity. After introducing the material in culturally diverse
our need for redemption," Cromartie says. And that sort
school districts in California, New York, Utah, and New
of recognition can only be stirred at the human level by
Mexico, he says that prayer supporters and opponents
lives marked by integrity and grace. It can never be
reveal at least one thing in common: They want public
imposed from without.
schools to take conscience seriously-whether it relates
"Christian civility takes human freedom seriously,"
to sex education, homosexual themes in literature, or
writes Mouw in Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an
religious expressions in the classroom. "What people
Uncivil World. "I may want people to believe as I do about
really want is something much more important than any
some basic matters-but what I want is for them to choose
prayer amendment that I've seen."
to see things that way."
Winter 1995
31
December 8, 1994
INSIGHT
Catholic Standard 7
School prayer revisited: Does it have a leg to kneel on?
By Carol Zimmermann
ban any overt form of religion in schools. Yet the
issue is what to do in a society that's increasingly
V
oluntary school prayer is back on the
pluralistic."
congressional agenda, right up there with
Father Perko sees the danger of "religion neu-
the economy and government reform.
tral" schools, but also is uneasy about "those
While it is touted by some as a means to
pushing school prayer," saying they tend to view
reverse the nation's moral decline, not everyone
America as "a homogeneous society where
sees it as the country's salvation.
everyone shares the same values."
The issue gained momentum just days after
According to the Anti-Defamation League of
Republicans won control of Congress, and
B'nai B'rith, supporters of the proposed amend-
House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.,
ment are not promoting religious freedom, but
announced support for a constitutional amend-
"are seeking to intrude their religious views into
ment permitting prayer in public schools. He
the school, and to do so in a way which would
promised a House vote by July 4.
inevitably make children in the religious minor-
The U.S. Supreme Court banned prayer in
ity feel conflicted or outcast."
public schools in 1962. And Jesuit Father Robert
The ADL joined other religious groups at a
Drinan, former congressman and Georgetown
recent press conference in Washington to
University law professor, said he feels the same
oppose the prayer amendment.
about it now as he did when he voted against it
"I don't think Catholics should forget," warns
in Congress 20 years ago.
Bill Bassett, professor of law at Jesuit-run Uni-
He believes the "difficulties (of school prayer)
versity of San Francisco, "that Catholic schools
would outweigh the benefits." His view, he said,
developed and became as large as they did pre-
echoes the stance the U.S. Catholic bishops last
cisely because Catholic students were subject to
took publicly on the issue in 1983.
many proselytizing influences in public schools
That year, when a proposed constitutional
from reading the King James version of the
amendment for school prayer went before
Bible or saying Protestant prayers," he said.
Congress, Msgr. Daniel Hoye, then U.S. Catholic
ut those who support a school-prayer
Catholic Standard photo by Michael Alexander
Conference general secretary, told members of
the Senate Judiciary Committee that prayer
B
amendment contend It is not to make
without instruction in religious tradition was
others feel left rather to guarantee
gious expression seems unfair discrimination
not sufficient.
students' freedom of speech.
against religious believers." She supports a
children, prayer alone will notnec-
"There is still an amount of hostility on behalf
movement to restore school prayer.
essarily lead to a deeper understanding of faith,
of courts and schools treating students of faith,"
Russell Shaw, public affairs director for the
or even to the significance and importance of
said Gene Kapp, spokesman for the American
Knights of Columbus, said the Knights have his-
prayer itself." Msgr. Hoye said at the time.
Center for Law andJustice, a public-interestlaw
torically supported restoring prayer "whether
The proposed amendment had "symbolic
firm in Virginia Beach, Va., founded by religious
by constitutional amendment or legislation."
value and only minimal pedagogical value," he
broadcaster Rev. Pat Robertson.
"While restoration of bona fide prayer on a
said, and could not "justify the problems it might
Kapp said his firm has been "actively involved
voluntary basis is ideal," he said, "the Knights
create in terms of the American diversity of reli-
in working out the language of the proposed
would also support at least a neutral moment of
gious beliefs and traditions and the right of reli-
amendment" with Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., R-
silence."
gious minorities in our pluralistic society."
Okla., who initiated it in October.
But even the moment of silence, already man-
In lieu of prayer. Msgr. Hoye recommended
"We are opposed to anything requiring people
dated in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South
public schools promote values consistent with
to pray, but at a graduation or in another setting,
Carolina and Tennessee, is contentious.
the nation's religious heritage.
they should be able to," he said, adding that the
"There are alternatives," Father Drinan told
"marketplace of ideas should include religious
Catholic News Service. "It's not prayer or noth-
speech."
A
ccording to Bassett, nothing is wrong with
a moment of silence, unless it is a
ing." For example, he said, schools should teach
According to a release from Istook's office, 78
"backdoor attempt" to reintroduce
about religion so students could learn about
percent of Americans support school prayer.
specificreligiousvalues.
faiths other than their own.
Istook, in a column he wrote for USA Today,
Others say such quiet moments are always
Jesuit Father F. Michael Perko, professor of
said: "We hear 'diversity,' 'tolerance' and 'inclu-
available to students and are often used, partic-
English and history at Chicago's Loyola Univer-
sion' as buzzwords. Then we're told not to toler-
ularly before an exam. for a quick prayer.
sity, also emphasized a middle ground, such as
ate somebody else's prayer, that somehow it is a
"If you think the debate is complex so far,"
the reinforcement of values.
danger to us."
Father Petro noted, "look at the demographics
But, he said, "I'm not persuaded historically"
Helen Hull Hitchcock, director of Women for
as America becomes more pluralistic, it will make
that the Constitution's founders intended "to
Faith and Family, said that "banishment of reli-
the confusion so far child's play in comparison."
LETTERS To THE EDITOR
Regarding immigrants, those once oppressed 'have become the oppressors'
After reading Ms. Ferranti's letter
As in other periods of history and
blaming the alien for what you pay in
and a vitality that transcends no mat-
(Nov. 24 Catholic Standard), it is clear
in other developed countries, the
taxes. See who gets the "hand-outs?"
ter what.
to me why so many Hispanics have
menial jobs are performed by immi-
You chide the foreigner for emi-
Because of the prejudice against
left the Catholic Church and become
grants. As in Rome, the citizens hire
grating, saying that he should have
Catholics and how we were treated,
evangelicals.
the "barbarians" to do what they do
stayed home "to correct what is
our children could not benefit from
We Catholics, now complacently
not wish to do. The United States
wrong." Tell me. is this what our
the public school system. Yet "this
sitting in the middle class, have for-
Army is full of Latinos. Whoever is
ancestors did? How many of them
ignorant and derided people" cre-
gotten what our parents and grand-
willing to fight gets his papers. Who
came as indentured servants for this
ated a school system which is unpar-
parents endured. Signs once read,
builds our roads, kills himself in the
was preferable to starvation? How
alleled; it does not exist in any other
"Irish need not apply." We were
fields, works in the restaurant
many risked their lives crossing the
country. This was done with pennies
"Wops" and "Mics," portrayed as
kitchens, or does the most menial
Atlantic in third class vessels in
earned with blood and sweat, and is
shiftless, ignorant, shady and the
construction work, out in the freez-
order to find a better life?
one of the glories of the American
object of ridicule. Apparently, we
ing and scorching temperatures?
Measures such as (California)
Catholic Church.
did not learn our lesson. The
On the other hand, I learned only
Proposition 187 will raise genera-
We should keep in mind the fol-
oppressed have become the oppres-
last week from someone working in a
tions full of resentments, preju-
lowing quote from Leviticus 19:34:
sors. We do this to our fellow
soup kitchen in Gaithersburg, that
dices, divisiveness and hates. This
"The stranger who sojourns with you
Catholics
most of their clients are neither His-
country will be destroyed, not by the
shall be to you as the native among
She also advocates that only the
panic nor African-Americans. Most
foreigner, but by people whose fears
you. and you shall love him as your-
worthy and deserving" should be
of them are white, middle-aged men
and anxieties have been fanned by
self, for you were strangers in the
"arded. When did our Lord sug-
and women and their children. for
the media and pragmatists.
land of Egypt.'
separate the wheat from the
they have not found work in "their
Iam not concerned with the immi-
Maria Teresa Meyer
profession." Therefore, please stop
grant, for he comes with an energy
Potomac
[Catholic Standard, December 8, 1994]
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
file school peayer
THE AMENDMENT RAP
individual ways to express their faith.
To mandate prayer in school is largely
Leave the Constitution alone
a symbolic act, as supporters of the
idea often acknowledge. What they
don't seem to realize is that in this case
by James M. Wall
a symbolic victory would be an empty
victory-it would serve to make
prayer an empty symbol.
F ALL THE WORLD'S a stage, then the U.S. Congress
We should keep in mind the exam-
I
these days is like a street corner where musicians are
ple of countries that have an official
state church: in such cases participa-
performing the Constitutional Amendment Rap. Four
tion in religious bodies is usually low.
amendments are being touted in Congress, all of
State endorsement of religion has a
which address issues that belong not to the ages but to current
way of undermining voluntary reli-
cultural and political wars. In their Contract with America the
gious activity. Do we really want to
Republicans promised action in the first 100 days on a bal-
move in that direction? (In some ways
religious life has survived more vi-
anced-budget amendment and an amendment to limit con-
brantly under government oppression
gressional terms of office. Both issues are ones that are best
than under official government en-
dorsement.)
addressed by conventional means—
president to two terms in office. This
If given an official stamp of ap-
through normal budget procedures
amendment weakens a president in his
proval, the Sabbath would begin to re-
and through voters' action at the polls.
second term-a situation that many
semble George Washington's birth-
They don't call for constitutional
Republicans came to regret when they
day-a day on the calendar whose true
amendments.
realized that they could not nominate
meaning can be ignored. But if religion
An amendment requiring the fed-
Ronald Reagan for a third term.
is part of the voluntary sphere, then an
eral government to match its spending
individual's and a community's faith
to its income was passed by the House
C
onsider the amendment permit-
comes into sharper focus. If prayer be-
of Representatives in late January and
ting prayer in public schools. Sup-
comes a sanctioned daily occurrence in
is now being considered by the Sen-
porters of the amendment feel that the
public schools, it would accomplish
ate. Two other proposals involve per-
increasing secularity of
the opposite of what the
mitting prayer in public schools and
American life has led to a
School-
proponents want.
restricting abortion. These are morally
decline in the nation's
The courts have af-
and legislatively complex matters, de-
moral standards. Among
sponsored
firmed the right of student
manding careful examination. But
the groups opposed to such
prayer would
religious groups to meet
they too are being formulated as con-
an amendment are those
trivialize
for prayer and Bible study
stitutional amendments. It is entirely
eager to block any public
faith and
in public schools outside of
possible that all four amendments will
expression of religion and
classroom time. Religious
pass through Congress and go to the
those religious pluralists
divert
students have just as much
states for ratification.
who are so concerned not
students from
right to meet and pray on
In focusing on constitutional
to offend nonbelievers that
voluntary
school grounds as the chess
changes, the Republicans are fighting
they prefer secularism to
club does to hold its meet-
their war on the wrong battlefield.
even the mildest expres-
expressions.
ings. It is in such voluntary
One value of the legislative process is
sion of a public faith. Both
settings, which are already
that it is rather easily reversed when it
groups tend to minimize the genuine
open to students, as well as in countless
becomes apparent that a law has not
hunger for religious expression in the
congregations and youth groups that
been effective or workable. Democra-
nation. They seem not to notice the
faith can best be shared, enriched and
cy works by testing the public will
way public schools have become so in-
developed. Rather than focus on the
against emerging realities. Amend-
timidated by civil libertarians and plu-
empty symbol of school prayer, we
ments to the Constitution can be
ralists that they have adopted a neutral
ought to do more with the freedom that
changed too, but not as easily; chang-
voice in all matters pertaining to basic
students already have to express reli-
ing this fundamental document of na-
moral standards.
gious concerns.
tional life is laborious and costly-as it
Nevertheless, an amendment al-
So let Congress sing the Amend-
should be. Which is exactly why we
lowing school prayer will not reverse
ment Rap through the long night of
should hesitate to amend it unless the
the secularity of the culture. In impor-
the first 100 days. When the dawn of
issues are momentous.
tant ways it would enhance that secu-
reality arrives, the legislative musi-
Republican opposition to Franklin
larity. A proliferation of school-spon-
cians should then fight their cultural
Roosevelt's four terms in office led to a
sored prayer would trivialize religious
wars without laying their heavy hands
constitutional amendment limiting a
faith and divert students from finding
on the U.S. Constitution.
163
CHRISTIAN CENTURY February 15, 1995
THE POSTCOMMUNIST FUTURE
tions the most aggressive figures are
the mafiosos. It is estimated that in
Is fascism next?
Moscow alone about 300 gangs oper-
ate with a brutality not seen since Al
Capone's heyday. Many former social-
by Paul Mojzes
ist economies-large ones like Russia's
or tiny ones like Montenegro's-have
fallen into the hands of brazen and to-
HEN COMMUNISM crum-
named) communists, as the electorate
tally merciless gangs. In the minds of
W
bled it appeared that the
showed massive dissatisfaction with
the people, the way these gangs oper-
people of Eastern Europe
the scant economic progress made by
ate is capitalism. People have been
and the former Soviet
the anticommunist leaders. While it's
nurtured, after all, on the notion that
lands were clamoring for democracy,
unlikely this represents a return to
capitalism means the exploitation of
multiparty elections, an open society,
communism, it is a cause for concern
the working people by ruthless capital-
a state of law, and the end of the one-
about democratization. What is yet to
ists, and this is what they now see every
party monopoly over the economy,
be determined is just how deep a mark
day. Large segments of the population
media and civic activities. The two
communist rule has made upon the av-
have become destitute, unable to af-
words most frequently heard were
erage person. The notion
ford even minimal medical
"democracy" and "capitalism." It was
that all vestiges of commu-
care or food, and some are
assumed widely both in the East and
nist mentality will vanish
The popular
driven to suicide. Mean-
the West that communism and social-
may be quite mistaken.
thinking goes
while a tiny minority wal-
ism had indeed collapsed and that the
The greater concern is
like this:
low in quickly gained
transition to democracy and capital-
economic. And economics
communism
wealth, which they display
ism was under way.
has enormous political
failed and
ostentatiously.
But neither the political nor eco-
consequences. As is well
The enrichment of
nomic transition has gone as well as
known, the economies of
capitalism
these gangs is not likely to
the populations expected, though re-
the socialist countries
isn't working.
help their own countries
sults vary. The Czech Republic ex-
were stagnant and obso-
What do we
as might be the case
hibits far greater democratic advances
lete and the centrally
do now?
should the newly rich put
than, say, Romania, where the very
planned enterprises were
their capital into legiti-
same people who ruled prior to the
not able to produce the
mate businesses. This is
revolution are still in power and show
consumer goods capitalism did. But it
because most of them do not reinvest
little evidence of having altered their
did provide job security for nearly ev-
it domestically but stash it away
style of governing.
eryone, a minimal but universal social
abroad. Banks in Cyprus and Switzer-
In Lithuania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and
security and negligible inflation.
land have become repositories of this
Hungary recent elections brought vic-
A visit to most former communist
ill-gained wealth. Russian en-
tory to the reconstituted (and re-
countries yields evidence of a greater
trepreneurs have become cherished
variety of consumer goods, particular-
customers in Finland because they
ly from abroad; the sprucing up of
buy Finnish real estate (in case they
some shabby cities to more glittering
need a safe haven) and purchase the
Compline
appearance (Prague, Budapest and St.
most expensive Mercedes cars for the
Petersburg, to mention a few), and the
For Stuart Henry
highest asking price-and pay cash.
presence of a youngish group of en-
Russian and Polish gangs operate in
Night after night
trepreneurs aggressively courting in-
Germany and other affluent coun-
since I was small
ternational investors. But the eco-
tries, engaging in car theft and other
good old God has listened
nomic well-being of the average per-
criminal activities (such as importing
son has gone from bad to worse. Par-
uranium or prostitutes), and they are
to my lies;
ticularly hard hit are the elderly and
using violence not just as a tactic of in-
has heard beneath the blessings
the workers in the former giant state
timidation but simply as an exercise of
the burning desire
enterprises that are unable to keep up
power and brashness.
with the changes. A few countries
In view of all this, popular think-
for the billboard tits
have vigorously pursued privatization
ing goes as follows: We tried commu-
of fame and fortune,
(Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Re-
nism and it did not work. We are now
and in his scribbled notes
public); others (such as Slovakia,
trying capitalism and it does not
Ukraine and Bulgaria) are loath to de-
work. Which way now?
unfolding in the fire
clare the mammoth enterprises de-
rocks and serpents
funct because they are concerned that
Paul Mojzes recently wrote Yugoslavian
have turned to bread.
the entire job base will collapse.
Inferno: Ethnoreligious Warfare in
Charles Cooper
In these uncertain economic condi-
the Balkans (Continuum).
CHRISTIAN CENTURY February 15, 1995
164
file Dehard prager
STATE OF ADUCATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERKA
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
THE GENERAL COUNSEL
DATE
: June 6, 1995
TO
: The Secretary
FROM
: Judith A. Winston
SUBJECT : Aguilar V. Felton
This memorandum responds to your request for a brief summary of
the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Aguilar V. Felton, 473 U.S.
402 (1985), the effects that decision has had on services for
private school children under Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and possible efforts to have that
decision overruled.
BACKGROUND
In Felton, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional
under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for Title I
personnel to provide instruction in religiously-affiliated
private schools. The Court concluded by a 5-4 vote that a Title
I instructional program in these private schools created
excessive entanglement between government and religion. In the
Court's view, the provision of Title I aid "in a pervasively
sectarian environment" in the form of teachers would require
"ongoing inspection ... to ensure the absence of a religious
message." 473 U.S. at 412. Therefore, the "program would
require a permanent and pervasive state presence in sectarian
schools" which, in turn, would cause excessive entanglement
between public and private school officials. Id. at 413.
In the years following the Felton decision, the Department issued
guidance on alternative delivery systems for providing Title I
services for children attending private schools. In accordance
with that guidance, Title I personnel have provided instruction
for these children in other locations including public school
sites, other public buildings and mobile vans parked on public
property and, in some instances, on private school property.
Also in accordance with guidance issued by this Department,
computer-assisted instruction has been provided in private school
buildings.
DISCUSSION
The Felton decision has had a significant negative impact on
Title I services for private school children. In the years
immediately following the decision, there was a dramatic decrease
in the number of private school children participating in the
400 MARYLAND AVE.. S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20202-2100
Page Two-Memorandum to the Secretary
Title I program. Although the number has increased in subsequent
years, the underlying problems caused by the Felton decision
continue. Instead of having Title I services in their own school
buildings, as public school children generally have, private
school children must go to another location to receive
instruction from a teacher. This creates not only logistical
problems, but significantly increases costs (for such things as
transportation or the purchase or rental of mobile vans). With
respect to computer-assisted instruction which is provided in
private schools, there is often criticism that this is not the
most educationally effective method for providing Title I
services. The Felton decision also at times has caused tension
between public and private school officials concerning how and
where Title I services should be provided for private school
children.
In addition, strong arguments can be made that the Supreme Court
reached the wrong legal conclusion in Felton. Title I is a
broad-based program for public and private school children, and
is required by statute to provide supplemental services. Title I
services are provided by public employees under public
supervision and no funds flow to any private school. Also, as
noted by Justice O'Connor in her dissenting opinion in Felton,
the Court's analysis "strongly exaggerates the degree of
supervision necessary to prevent public school teachers from
inculcating religion.
473
U.S.
at
421.
In
fact,
the
evidentiary record in the Felton case revealed no such problem of
any Title I teacher ever attempting to inculcate religion in the
nineteen years that Title I services had been provided in private
schools in New York City. See 473 U.S. 424-25. Therefore, the
program does not need the degree of on-site monitoring
contemplated by the Court, and excessive entanglement should not
result.
OPTIONS
The Supreme Court's decision last year in Board of Education of
Kiryas Joel Village School District V. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481
(1994) indicates that a majority of the Court may no longer
support the Felton decision. In fact, five Supreme Court
justices indicated in Kiryas Joel that Felton should be
reconsidered, with four of the justices expressly stating that
Felton should be overruled in an appropriate case. See 114 S.
Ct. at 2498, 2505, 2515. (In Kiryas Joel, the Court decided that
the creation of a special school district in New York state for
serving students with disabilities of a specific religious
community was unconstitutional. The school district was created
in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Felton.)
In light of the statements made by the five justices in Kiryas
Joel, there has been strong interest in having Felton overturned
Page Three-Memorandum to the Secretary
in an appropriate case, and this office has had discussions with
Department of Justice officials on how this might be
accomplished. One problem is that since Title I services are
being provided in accordance with Felton there is no pending case
that squarely presents the issue. Nevertheless, there are at
least three possible options for raising the issue.
One possibility is filing a motion in the original Felton case at
the district court level to dissolve the injunction against
providing Title I services in private schools. The basis for
this motion essentially would be that there has been a change in
the controlling law because Felton no longer commands a majority
of the Supreme Court. This approach is not likely to succeed,
however, because the lower courts would be bound to follow the
Supreme Court's decision in Felton, and it would not appear
likely that the Supreme Court would grant review of a motion in
the original case. The advantage of this approach is that it
could be done quickly, and there would appear to be little to
lose even if the effort was unsuccessful.
A second option is to raise the Felton issue in a pending case
that presents similar issues. Although there is no pending case
involving Title I services in private schools, there are cases
involving closely related issues, such as the constitutionality
of providing Title I services in mobile vans parked near private
schools or on private school property. There are only a few
pending lower court cases involving these issues, however, and
there may not be an opportunity for Supreme Court review in these
cases for a significant period of time. In the one recent court
of appeals decision in this area, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the
Department's favor on the issue of parking mobile vans on private
school property. Walker V. San Francisco Unified School
District, 46 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1995). Although the Ninth
Circuit is considering whether to rehear this case, it is not
likely that plaintiffs would appeal the van issue to the Supreme
Court. The issue of parking mobile vans on public streets to
provide Title I services is pending in a lawsuit involving the
Title I program in New York City. Committee for Public Education
and Religious Liberty (PEARL) V. Secretary, United States
Department of Education, No. 88 Civ. 96 (E.D.N.Y.).
Although the Felton issue could be raised at an appropriate point
in this case, the court could easily, and likely would, uphold
the parking of mobile vans on public property without ever
reaching the issue of whether Felton should be overruled.
A third option is to try to raise the Felton issue in some other
case, not involving the Title I program. Although the issue
might arise with respect to another Federal or state program, we
have not found a good vehicle for raising the issue in this
context.
Page Four-Memorandum to the Secretary
CONCLUSION
The Felton decision has adversely affected the quantity and
quality of Title I services for private school children.
Although the Supreme Court has indicated its willingness to
reconsider and possibly overrule the Felton decision, an
appropriate case to raise this issue needs to be found. We
recommend that the Department, in consultation with Department of
Justice officials, continue to review pending cases and seek
reversal of the Felton decision as soon as possible in an
appropriate case.
OF EDUCATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECRETARY
(NITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO
:
George Stephanopoulos
Senior Advisor to the President
Stephen Neuwirth
Associate Counsel to the President
Ribard
W.
FROM
:
Richard W. Riley
SUBJECT: Possible Legal Initiative to Strengthen Federally-
funded Educational Services for Private School Children
I am writing to call to your and the President's attention an
issue that I intend to pursue relating to educational services
for private school children.
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the
largest program of Federal aid to elementary and secondary
education, with annual grants of over $6 billion. The grants are
made to local public school agencies to provide supplementary
educational services for children in schools with high concentra-
tions of poor children. Under the statute, the public agency
grantees must provide equitable services with Title I funds to
eligible children in private schools. Grants of funds are not
made to private schools. In a 1985 case, Aguilar V. Felton, the
Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional under the
Establishment of Religion Clause for Title I personnel to provide
instruction in religiously-affiliated schools.
The effect of that decision has been to impair the quality and
quantity of educational services to private school children and
to make it difficult to assure that services to these children
are equitable. Although this Department has supported a variety
of back-up arrangements to serve private school children (for
example, in mobile vans parked on or near the private schools),
and has successfully defended them against legal challenge, the
arrangements have not been satisfactory -- in our view and that
of the U.S. Catholic Conference and other advocates for private
school children -- in assuring high quality educational services
that meet the needs of these children.
For this reason, and because a majority of Supreme Court Justices
have expressed their willingness to reexamine the Aguilar
decision, it is my intent to explore with the Department of
Justice an appropriate litigation vehicle for bringing this issue
back before the Court. Some possibilities are discussed in the
attached memo from Judith Winston, my General Counsel. I would
be pleased to discuss this issue at your convenience.
Attachments
400 MARYLAND AVE.. S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20202-0100
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.
It Statement re Religion in Public School
file
SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT ON RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
school
Students, individually or in groups, can engage in private, non-
prayer
1.
disruptive prayer and discussion of religion.
2.
Teachers and school administrators may not encourage or solicit student
religious or anti-religious activity.
3.
While public schools can teach about religion -- e.g., comparative
religion, the history of religion, etc. -- they may not teach religion
itself.
4.
While "creationism" can be discussed in comparative religion or social
studies classes, schools must not teach as scientific fact any religious
doctrine of a supernatural creator, including "creationism." At the
same time, teachers may not ridicule any religious doctrine of origins.
5.
Student religious speech in the form of reports, homework and artwork is
constitutionally protected.
6.
Some other forms of public religious expression in the classroom are
also protected.
7.
Students may distribute religious literature to their school-mates,
subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
8.
Outsiders may not distribute religious literature in the classroom.
Courts have not yet addressed whether outside groups can distribute
religious literature in common areas of public schools if other
community groups are permitted to distribute secular publications.
9.
Students may participate in religious events - e.g., at a flagpole -
before or after school.
10.
Students may attempt, in non-harassing ways, to persuade their peers
about religious topics.
11.
The Equal Access Act should be enforced.
12.
While public schools may not observe holidays as religious events, those
schools may teach about religious holidays and celebrate the secular
aspects of those holidays.
13.
Schools have substantial discretion to excuse individual students from
lessons that are objectionable to the students on the basis of religion.
14.
Schools may teach civic virtues -- such as honesty, civility, tolerance
and hard work -- so long as these virtues are not taught as religious
tenets. At the same time, the fact that religions also teach these
values does not make it unlawful to teach them in school.
15.
Students may wear religious attire, and religious messages on shirts or
other clothing items may not be singled out for suppression.
16.
Schools have the discretion to permit students to participate in off-
premises religious instruction during the school day, so long as the
schools do not encourage or discourage participation.
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. J. RES.
IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. ISTOOK introduced the following joint resolution: which was referred to
pound
1 tyde
the Committee on
brilating ( ItLD orifica
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing a religious liberties amendment to the Constitution
of the United States to secure the people's right to
acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience.
1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow-
4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu-
5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents
6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by
7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica-
9 tion:
November 20. 1995 (10:22 a.m.)
2
i
"ARTICLE -
2
"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God ac-
3 cording to the dictates of conscience: Nothing in this Con-
4 stitution shall prohibit acknowledgments of the religious
5 heritage, beliefs, or traditions of the people, or prohibit
6 student-sponsored prayer in public schools. Neither the
7 United States nor any State shall compose any official
but
not
8 prayer or compel joining in prayer, or discriminate against
9 religious expression or belief.".
Designation
or
omercuays
mly my per fedel give from
15mg mendat my educts- -
"Cores dont right
is 1st 1n A.
high mat ch
Pal. common sectorion ground better vs. desate
been coupl
felter rud further Adv partier
orienth man can al nation -
November 20, 1995 (10:22 a.m.)
104TH CONGRESS
IST SESSION
II. J. RES. 121
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in
order to secure the unalicnable right of the people to acknowledge,
worship, and serve their Creator, according to the dictates of
conscience.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 15, 1995
Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. CANADY of Florida, and Mr. GOODLATTE)
introduced the following joint resolution: which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to secure the
unalienable right of the people to acknowledge, worship, and serve their Creator,
according to the dictates of conscience.
//Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein). 11 That the
following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
which shall he valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date
of its submission for ratification:
"ARTICLE --
"Neither the United States nor any State shall deny benefits to or otherwise discriminate
against any private person or group on account of religious expression, belief. or identity:
nor shall the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion be construed to
require such discrimination.".
NOV-16-1995 12:00
2022932672
P.02
Proposed Prayer Amendment Splits the Right
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
conflict Just proves what we've been
nate to secularism.
saying all along." said Joseph Conn,
"The authentic vision of the First.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Open-
ing a rift within the religious right, a
a spokesman for Americans United
Amendment, and of the Founders,
for Separation of Church and State,
and of the United States until about
House Republican today introduced
a constitutional amendment that
"It's not that easy to improve on
40 years ago, was one of pluralistic
Madison and Jefferson."
public space in which all citizens,
would provide for prayer In public
Mr. Conn described both proposals
religious and nonrellgious, have
schools, a proposal that some other
== "atroclous." He said the Istook
equal rights," Mr. McConnell said in
conservatives and religious groups
amendment would essentially repeal
an Interview today. The real prob-
say goes In the wrong direction.
the First Amendment's Establish-
lem today, he said, Is "the enforced
As a result, Representative Ernest
ment Clause, which says that "Con-
secularization of public life, not
Jim Istook Jr.. a flery second-term
Republican from Oklahoma who in-
gress shall make no law respecting
school prayer."
an establishment of religion." And
Mr. McConnell and others pointed
troduced the amendment, is now in as
he said the Hyde approach would
to several cases to bolster their
standoff with one of the most re-
allow the Government to promote
point. One Involved Brittney Settle, a
spected conservatives in Congress,
religion through a "benefits provi-
ninth grader In Tennessee who was'
Representative Henry J. Hyde of IIII-
sion" requiring that when it finances
assigned to write a research paper
nois, chairman of the House Judicia-
secular' Institutions, It finance rell-
on any topic using four sources.
ry Committee.
glous institutions as well.
When the girl wrote on the life of
Mr. Istook's goal Is to have prayer
Mr. Hyde's supporters say his
Jesus, her teacher gave her a failing
In the schools. The goal of Mr. Hyde,
amendment would prohibit discrimi-
grade, saying all "documentation"
who introduced his own amendment
nation against people who want to
on Jesua would "derive from one
Blast week, Is to prevent
express their religious views. They
source, the Bible."
tion against the expression of rell-
deem the measure necessary de-
In another case, the Commerce
glous views, whether in public school
commencements or on public radio
spite the First Amendment's guar-
Department rejected a grant, appli-_
antee of religious freedom because
cation from Fordham University to
stations; he is silent on school pray-
of so many differing legal interpre-
raise its radio antenna because the
er, which is a priority for some con-
tations of what Is permissible.
Jesuit school's radio station broad-
servatives.
cast Sunday morning Mass. This vio-
The standoff Is foreing House con-
Mr. Istook's amendment would al-
servatives and the religious right to
low student-sponsored prayer In
lated department policy against fi-
choose sides, leaving some to Year
public schools and would permit
nancing noncommercial stations
that this Internal squabble may
communities to decide themselves
that broadcast religious program-
on whether to have religious dis-
ming.
doom the entire yearlong effort to
As discussions about a religious
amend the Constitution as a way of
plays during the holidays. H.s crit-
equality amendment proceeded on
protecting and furthering religious
ics, which Include numerous rell-
expression in American life. Central
gious groups, object to organized
Capitol Hill this year, It became evi-
dent that Mr. Istock was most Inter-
to the debate is the role of govern-
school prayer and say the proposal
ment In religion.
smacks of a "majority rule" that
ested In reviving school prayer. But
would exclude members of religious
others, Including Mr. Hyde, agreed
"Right now, this Is shaping up as a
with Mr. McConnell that the lack of
minorities.
fight between those on the religious
organized school prayer was not the
right," said Forest Montgomery,
Mr. Istook took the lead on the
problem; the problem was discrimi-
counsel to the National Association
religious amendment nearly a year
nation against religious expression.
of Evangellcals, one of about a dozen
ago, when Speaker Newt Gingrich
Mr, Montgomery, of the evangeli-
groups that have been helping to
said the House would deal with the
cal group, said Mr. Istook's amend-
draft religious-protection language.
social agenda of Its conservative
ment treated discrimination "as an
"These are our brothers and sisters,
members after It finished work on
afterthought, whereas for us that is
and there's a disagreement here."
the Contract With America.
the central Issue, the raison d'etre of
Mr. Montgomery's group, like
But among many religious conser-
the whole exercise."
many others, supports the Hyde ap-
vatives, the major concern as de-
"Istook doesn't prevent the courts
proach but acknowledges that Mr.
fined by one of them, Michael Mc-
from construing. the Establishment
Istook has more' co-sponsors and
Connell, a professor of constitutional
Clause as requiring discrimination
that a major struggle lles ahead.
law at the University of Chicago, is
against people because of their rell-
On the sidelines for now are those
not school prayer. It is Instead, Pro-
gious expression," Mr. Montgomery
who oppose any change in the Consti-
fessor McConnell says, that expres-
sald. "That's the crux of the prob-
ution as it applies to religion. "This
sion of religion has become subordi-
lem."
P.02
NOV-22-1995 14:37
NYT
Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 544-4226
American Association of School Administrators
fax (202) 544-2094
American Association of University Women
American Baptist Churches USA
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Teachers
American Humanist Association
November 16, 1995
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Americans for Democratic Action
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Dear Representative:
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
B'nai B'rith
The Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty supports
B'nai B'rith Women
Central Conference of American Rabbis
America's historic commitment to protect our God-given religious
Church of the Brethren
liberty through the two religion clauses in the First Amendment.
Washington Office
We oppose the "religious equality" constitutional amendment
The Episcopal Church
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot
introduced by Representative Hyde yesterday (House Joint
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Resolution 121). The amendment would perform radical surgery
General Board of Church & Society,
on the First Amendment which has never been amended in over
United Methodist Church
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
200 years.
Hadassah
The Interfaith Alliance
Interfaith Impact for Justice and Peace
The amendment is unnecessary. The First Amendment, the
Jewish Labor Committee
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Equal Access Act
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
already protect religious exercise. Prayer has not been kicked out
Mennonite Central Committee.
of the public schools and religion has not been banished from the
Washington Office
National Association of Elementary School Principals
public square. Current law allows students to pray anytime they
National Committee for Public Education
like -- even orally and collectively as long as they are not
and Religious Liberty
disruptive. Student religious clubs abound in secondary schools.
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Jewish Women
Citizens can speak of their religious convictions in town hall
National Council on Islamic Affairs
meetings and religious leaders can hold rallies in public parks.
National Education Association
Indeed, recent Supreme Court decisions reaffirm the robust
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
National Jewish Democratic Council
protection for religious expression in public places.
People for the American Way Action Fund
Presbyterian Church (USA),
What current law does not allow but the new amendment
Washington Office
Rabbinical Assembly
would permit and sometimes require is government endorsement
Rabbinical Council of America
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
of religious messages and promotion of religious activities. For
Soka Gakkai International-USA
example, the amendment would require the government to fund
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
religious activities in the same way it funds secular activities.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Thus, if the government funds the educational and charitable
Institute for Public Affairs
activities of secular organizations, it must also fund the sacred
United Church of Christ
missions of churches and synagogues and other pervasively
Office for Church in Society
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
sectarian groups.
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington Ethical Action Office
American Ethical Union
This will ultimately allow the government to coerce, control
Women of Reform Judaism
and compromise religion. When the state advances religion in this
The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women's American ORT
way, it violates the consciences of taxpayers who rightfully expect
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
the government to remain neutral toward religion. And, because
Women's League for Conservative Judaism
the government must monitor and sometimes restrict its grants, it
The Workmen's Circle
also will create entangling alliances between church and state.
Moreover, as is all too clear this week, government funds are limited. Government simply
cannot fund all 2000 religious groups in the United States. The amendment will trigger
unhealthful competition among faith groups and force government to make divisive and
agonizing decisions about which groups get public money. All too often, only the majority
religions will "reap the spoils." The founders wisely took this role away from the government;
we should not attempt to restore it.
Not only would the amendment permit government-funded religious activities, it would
also permit government-sponsored religious expression. It would appear to allow, for exampie,
a public school student to lead their captive classroom audience in prayer, a teacher to sponsor
a religious student club during a free period, and a school to invite a rabbi or minister to lead
a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony. As the Supreme Court and Congress have
recognized, these situations create the very real impression that the government is endorsing
religion even though the speaker is a "private person." We should not trade the delicate balance
inherent in the First Amendment for the blunt cut of "religious equality." If there is one
touchstone of church-state relations in the United States, it is that no American should be made
to feel a religious outsider by their government.
We believe in the value of prayer and affirm the role of religion in our lives and the lives
of our children. We oppose government meddling in these sacred precincts. Religious
expression and the advancement of spiritual beliefs should be left to houses of worship, families
and individual citizens.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the Hyde amendment.
Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 544-4226
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of University Women
fax (202) 544-2094
American Baptist Churches USA
Coalition Defends Religious Liberty
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Teachers
by Opposing Istook Amendment
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
The Istook amendment is the second assault within one
American Jowish Congress
Americans for Democratic Action
week on the religion clauses of the First Amendment.
Americans for Religious Liberty
Despite its disclaimers, the Istook amendment would
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
authorize state-sponsored religious practices, ranging from
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
state-endorsed prayer in our public school classrooms to a
B'nai B'rith
B'nai B'rith Women
legislative proclamation that the United States is a Christian
Central Conference of American Rabbis
nation. This amendment would allow the government to
Church of the Brethren Washington Office
coerce, control and compromise religion.
The Episcopal Church
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot
Both the Istook amendment and the amendment
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Board of Church & Society, United Methodist Church
introduced by Rep. Hyde on November 15 (H.J.Res. 121)
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
are unneeded. Students can pray any time they like -- even
Hadassah
The Interfaith Alliance
orally and collectively as long as it is not disruptive.
Interfaith Impact for Justice and Peace
Student Bible clubs abound in secondary schools. Nor has
Jewish Labor Committee
religious expression been removed from the public forum.
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Citizens can speak of their religious convictions in town hall
Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office
meetings, and religious leaders can hold rallies in public
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty
parks. Indeed, recent United States Supreme Court
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
decisions reaffirm the robust protection for religious
National Council of Jewish Women
expression in public places.
National Council on Islamic Affairs
National Education Association
These measures are also unwise. The amendments
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
National Jewish Democratic Council
would perform radical surgery on the First Amendment
People for the American Way Action Fund
which has never been amended in over 200 years. They
Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office
Rabbinical Assembly
would inevitably weaken our rich tradition of religious
Rabbinical Council of America
liberty. The protections afforded by the separation of church
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
Soka Gakkai International-USA
and state have resulted in unprecedented religious liberty in
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
this country and have helped to create a vibrant religious
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
landscape envied by the rest of the world.
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Institute for Public Affairs
Finally, these measures would harm religion. Religious
United Church of Christ
Office for Church in Society
expression must be voluntary and uncoerced if it is to be
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
meaningful. Organized school prayer in the classroom or at
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington Ethical Action Office
school functions would coerce the consciences of a captive
American Ethical Union
audience of students. Government-sponsored religious
Women of Reform Judaism
expression in public places impermissibly endorses religion
The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women's American ORT
and disparages the rights of religious minorities.
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's League for Conservative Judaism
The Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty is an
The Workmen's Circle
alliance of over 50 national religious, educational and civil
liberties organizations. The Coalition pledges to defend
religious liberty by opposing both the Istook and Hyde
amendments.
Contact: Rabbi Saperstein (202) 387-2800 or Rev. Walker (202) 544-4226
November 21, 1995
Coalition opposes religion amendment
Tells Congress it
Supporters of an amendment
arationst groups
have said it's necessary because
All members of 1:10 mulition op-
threatens freedom
the courts don't always uphold citi-
pose a constitutional mendment,
zens' rights to express religion in
but some such as Oliver Thomas,
public places. including schools.
church state counsel for the Na-
"Fifty years of fiddling with the
By Larry Witnam
nonal Council of Churches. advo-
THE
First Amendment by lawyers and
date more tree expression of rell-
judges has distorted the doc-
gion for students.
Alarmed by Congress' first step
trine of church and state." said Mi-
What Mr. Thomas opposes is
toward protecting religious lib-
chael Whitehead. counsel for the
government funding of religious-
erty by amending the Constitu-
Christian Life Commission of the
based organizations which the
tion, a confition of Christians June
Southern Baptist Convention
Hyde amendment world allow on
and civil libertarians has launched
SBC). which supports the amend-
equal terms with conreligious
a countermove.
ment.
groups that gain funding.
The Coalition to Preserve Reli-
Roman Catholic organizations.
The debate contes SIX months
gious Liberty. formed earlier this
which support voluntary school
year to oppose Republican efforts
prayer. have not commented yet.
after Congress began to hold reli-
to add a Religious Equality
Mr. Hyde is Roman Catholic.
glous liberty hearings, which
tended to focus on the amendment
Amendment last week circulated
The legislative action has re-
issue
to Congress its opposition to an
vealed the differences between the
amendment by Rep Henry Hyde,
two sides in the debate
Lawmakers as the hearings
Illinois Republican.
Some groups urged Mr. Myde to
"came into opposition to the
"The amendment IS unneces-
submit his bill to circumventa pro-
amendment that who very vocal,
sary" the condition statement and
pose amendment by Rep Ernest
very heartfelt and yery religious,"
"What current law does not allow
Istook Jr., Oklahoma Republican,
said Menssa Robers. associate
- but the New amendment sould
that seeks to place "school praver"
counsel for the Bankst Joint Com-
permit and sometimes recure
and "retreious heritage" under
mitter on Public Allans which is
is government endorsement of re-
constitutional protection.
coordinating the consition.
ligious messages and promotional
Other pro-Hyde groups. such as
She said this raised a question
religious activities."
the Christian Legal Society and
- even among conservative law-
Mr. Hyde's amendment. submit-
the National Association of Evan-
makers - that amending the Con-
ted Wednesday night, says govern-
gelicals, believe that constitu-
stitution might be too drastic. The
ment cannot deny benefits to or
tional protection of "religious tru-
opposition believes the debate will
discriminate against people or
dition" may allow majorities to
be drawn out for a long time.
groups based on their "religious
install a preferred religion under
A majority voteot two-thirds by
expression belief. or identity"
law
each chamber is needed to pro-
Such language. the coulition
The coantion has 54 member
pose a constitutional amendment
said. "will ultimately allow the
groups nearly half of them Jew-
to the states Approval by three-
government to coerce. control and
ish including public school
fourths of the state legislatures is
compromise religion."
unions and church state sep-
required for ratification
DAILY POINTS
PRESIDENT CLINTON CHAMPIONS
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
TRANSIT OFTER THE OF OF STATE THE UNITED
July 12, 1995
"The First Amendment protects religious expression - it does not convert our public schools into religion-free zones.
Wherever and whenever the religious rights of our children are threatened or suppressed, we must move quickly and
decisively to correct it. We want to make it easier and more acceptable for people to express and celebrate their
faith."
President Clinton
Wednesday, July 12, 1995
Today, President Clinton speaks at James Madison High School, in Virginia about religious liberty and the
need for America to find common ground. He will direct the Secretary of Education and the Attorney
General to provide every school district in America, before school starts in the fall, with a detailed
explanation of the religious expression permitted in America's schools.
Deep Commitment to Protecting Religious Freedom. In 1993, the President signed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act to reaffirm the protections the Constitution and First Amendment give to religious expression.
Secretary Riley and the President have worked to make sure that America's children have an opportunity to
learn the responsibilities and basic values of good citizenship in school.
America Has a Noble Tradition of Protecting Religious Freedom. Religious freedom is our "first
freedom." It opens the First Amendment. Today, we have the freedom to enjoy and express our own
beliefs. We have the protection that government cannot be used to coerce people's conscience or suppress
people's faith.
America Has Built the Most Vibrant and Diverse Religious Culture in the World. There are more than
250,000 houses of worship in America. More people go to church than in any other Western nation.
America is home to more different religions than any other nation. Religion thrives in America, because it is
unfettered by government.
Government Must Not Inhibit Religious Expression. Some Americans have been denied the freedom to
express religion. The President believes that must stop. Government must not prevent the expression of
specific religious views in the name of the First Amendment.
No Need for a Constitutional Amendment. President Clinton believes we do not need a constitutional
amendment to protect religious expression. We already have one -- the First Amendment. The First
Amendment works and has granted America unrivalled religious liberty.
The First Amendment Does Not Bar Religious Expression from Our Schools. The First Amendment does
not require students to leave their religion behind at the schoolhouse door. Students should bring the values
they learn from religion to school. Reinforcing those values is an essential part of a school's mission.
Broad Protection for Religious Expression under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects
and permits a broad array of religious expression and worship.
Students can pray privately and individually, whenever they want. They can say grace to themselves
before lunch. Students can pray to themselves before tests.
U
Student religious clubs in high school can and should be treated just like any other extracurricular
club. They can advertise their meetings, meet on school grounds, and use school facilities just like
those clubs.
U
When students can choose to read a book to themselves, they have every right to read the Bible to
themselves.
-MORE-
(202) 456-5642
FAX (202) 456-1213
THE WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Teachers can and should teach about religion and the contributions it has made to history, to values
and knowledge, to music and art, in America and around the world.
Students should feel free to express their religion and beliefs in homework, through artwork, and
during class presentations, as long as it's relevant to the assignment.
If students can distribute flyers or pamphlets that have nothing to do with school, they can distribute
religious flyers and pamphlets under the same rules.
If students can wear t-shirts advertising sports teams, rock groups and politicians, they can wear t-
shirts about religion.
If certain subjects or activities are objectionable to students or their parents because of religious
beliefs, then schools may, and sometimes must, excuse those students.
Schools cannot advocate religious beliefs, but they should teach mainstream values and virtue.
Must Deepen Our Understanding of the First Amendment. The President believes we must work
together to help all Americans understand exactly what the First Amendment does:
Protects freedom of religion by allowing students to pray,
Protects freedom of religion by preventing schools from telling them how to pray.
Executive Action to Explain Religious Liberty. The President is directing the Secretary of Education and
the Attorney General to provide every school district in America, before school starts in the fall, with a
detailed explanation of the religious expression permitted in our schools. Parents, students, educators, and
religious leaders can use this directive to work together, to understand their differences, protect students'
religious rights, and find common ground.
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
Office of the
General Secretary
President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write to you out of our concern over the recent controversy about
the discussion of a possible "school prayer" amendment. The religious
communities that we represent have consistently taken clear positions
against such an amendment.
Mr. President, in order to clarify our position and avoid any
misunderstanding or ambiguity about the stance of much of the
religious community, we would like the opportunity to bring together
heads of major religious organizations to meet with you to discuss the
issue as soon as is convenient for you. If you wish, our discussion
will be off the record.
A list of leaders of major religious organizations whose views on this
issue are consistent with our own and who would like to be included in
such a meeting if their schedules permit will follow this letter.
Dvora Tager in the Religious Action Center office can be reached at
(202) 387-2800 to help arrange the meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our position. We look
forward to meeting with you soon.
Dand Sincerely, B. Campbell
Rabbi David Saperstein
Reverend Joan Brown Campbell
Director,
General Secretary
Religious Action Center of
National Council of the Churches
Reform Judaism
of Christ in the USA
475 Riverside Drive
Room 880
New York, NY 10115-0050
212-870-2141
Fax 212.870.2817
The Reverend Dr. Charles Adams
Immediate Past President,
Progressive National Baptist Convention
(313) 861-1285
Dr. Jimmy Allen
Former President,
Southern Baptist Convention
(706) 579-1202
The Reverend James E. Andrews
Stated Clerk,
Presbetyrian Church, USA
(502) 569-5360
Dawud Assad
Chairman,
National Council of Mosques
(212) 627-4033
The Right Reverend Edmond L. Browning
Presiding Bishop,
The Episcopal Church
(212) 867-8400
The Reverend Dr. Herbert W. Chilstrom
Bishop,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(312) 380-2977
Dr. James Dunn
Executive Director,
Baptist Joint Committee
(202) 544-4226
Bishop Frederick C. James
Bishop,
African Methodist Episcopal Church
(202) 842-3788
Reverend Dr. Albert M. Pennybacker
Director of Ecumenical Development Initiative,
National Council of Churches
(212) 870-3260
Rabbi Alexander Schindler
President,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
(212) 249-0100
Rabbi Ismar Schorsch
Chancellor,
Jewish Theological Seminary of America
(212) 678-8000
Dr. Cecil Sherman
Coordinator,
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
(404) 455-7379
The Reverend Dr. Paul H. Sherry
President,
United Church of Christ
(216) 736-2101
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert
Secretary,
Council of Bishops
(415) 474-3101
The Reverend Dr. Daniel Weiss
General Secretary,
American Baptist Churches in the USA
(610) 768-2272
Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman,
President,
Central Conference of American Rabbis
(212) 684-4990
Give Us This Day Our Daily Pabulum
By David Klinghoffer
not relish controversy. Either they
way. Bland, undemanding, essential-
Christians generally, the sects in
CLINTON &
college.
Today,
would end up writing prayers specif-
ly meaningless, it says: You've been
whose veins red blood flows - the
the only Jewish
ically designed to avoid the wrath of
nice to us in the past, God. Be nice to
booming Mormons and Southern
denomination
he possibility of reviv-
parents or the proposed amendment
us in the future.
Baptists - are the ones who, when
able to hold on to
T
ing prayer in public
to the Constitution would dictate the
If Mr. Gingrich and his allies want
they pray, do it for keeps.
its young people
schools has all the ear-
national prayer.
to inspire children to a more reli-
A book by Roger Finke and Rod-
is Orthodoxy.
marks of a bona fide
Noting that 75 percent of Ameri-
gious life, they should consider what
ney Stark, "The Churching of Amer-
After all, au-
conservative cause.
cans favor allowing school prayer, a
happened to those who, like me, grew
ica, 1776-1990," argues convincingly
thentic religions
It's got religion. It's
Wall Street Journal editorial recom-
up on prayers similar to the one that
that American churches fail to in-
have
distinct
got morality. It's a thumb in the eye
mended that an amendment specify
inspired Engel.
spire congregants, and so lose them,
ideas about about
to the cultural elite. It's got most
the text of the prayer that was the
The past few decades have been a
in direct proportion to the degree
CONGRESS
what God is and
everything - until you look at it
centerpiece of Engel V. Vitale, the
time of liturgical overhaul for many
that the church compromises with
what He de-
closely. For what kind of prayer do
major denominations, from Roman
the "modern" world and makes few
mands. Authentic prayer reflects
Newt Gingrich and other enthusiasts
Catholics to Episcopalians to Re-
real demands of the congregants in
this, which is why it often seems, to
think might, in a realistic best-case
form Jews. It has also been a time of
order to avoid offending them.
outside eyes, so strange, even danger-
scenario, actually end up being said?
A school prayer
profound decline, especially for the
ous. Kids know false prayer when
It's difficult to believe that in
liberal mainline religious groups.
know best the woes of the
they see it. And false prayer, like the
choosing prayers, school adminis-
would be a
This is not a coincidence.
I
Reform movement, the lib-
one in Engel, has in mind not the
trators or parents would be given
Catholics, who after 1963 started
eral wing of Judaism, for
supernatural, transcendent relation
absolute liberty. A constitutional
hollow prayer.
replacing the Latin Mass with bland
which compromise with the
of God to man but the mundane, polit-
amendment permitting school pray-
vernacular translations, have seen
world is a principle of faith.
ical relation of man to man. It secks
er would surely include language to
interest in their priesthood - the
Reform dispensed with the
to convey only as much truth as it
insure that it is neither sectarian nor
ultimate index of Catholic passion
ancient Jewish prayer book, the Sid-
feels confident won't offend anybody.
coercive. But even if Jewish and
drop precipitously. In 1965, 10.6 of
dur, more than a century ago. Since
Maybe I've misjudged Newt Ging-
Christian parents could agree on,
Supreme Court decision in 1962 that
every 10,000 American Catholics
1975, Reform Jews have prayed
rich. Maybe he wants a constitution-
say, the beloved Psalm 23, where
banned prayer in the first place.
were enrolled in a seminary; by
from a book with the portentous title
al amendment merely to symbolize
would that leave Muslims? Or athe-
This little number, composed by
1990, the figure was 1.1.
"Gates of Prayer," from which the
the sovereignty of public opinion
THE NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1994
ists? Or feminists who object to re-
the New York State Board of Re-
The Episcopalians replaced their
Engel prayer might easily have been
polls. The Republicans I voted for,
ferring to God as He?
gents, was calculated to offend no
beautiful 1928 Book of Common Pray-
extracted.
however, have pledged themselves
Outside the most homogeneous
one: "Almighty God, we acknowledge
er with the anodyne 1979 version.
None of my classmates at Reform
to a program that would have real
districts, school bureaucrats could
our dependence upon Thee, and we
Since the early 1960's, the number of
Hebrew school took this colorless
effects: tax relief, welfare reform.
be forced to do endless battle with
beg Thy blessing upon us, our par-
Episcopalians has declined, though
document seriously, full as it was of
Every hour they spend fighting for a
enraged parents. But bureaucrats do
ents, our teachers and our country."
losses have leveled off since 1990.
soft words that asked little of us and
symbol is an hour they don't spend
This is the kind of prayer that
Fallen-away Episcopalians tell me
seemed to request of God only that
fighting for the things that matter.
David Klinghoffer is literary editor
schools will use if Newt Gingrich, the
that the book perfectly symbolized
He be nice. We stopped attending
Which will it be, Mr. Gingrich? I'm
of National Review.
next Speaker of the House, gets his
the thinning of their ranks. Among
Reform services when we got to
praying you make the right choice
Back to
tion in London, brings this divide into
focus. It shows a new attitude toward
work among the young in Europe as
Class
well as America, a desire to work
flexibly and individually, a loss of
loyalty to corporations and a willing-
ness to demand that employers make
Warfare
work more personally satisfying.
But only a fifth of young Ameri-
cans have the training or skills to act
on such desires; the other four-
fifths, who have no personal bargain-
By Richard Sennett
ing power, can only worry about
getting some job, any job, even
though they share the sentiments of
the elite. Under such conditions, feel-
A ccording to the wisdom of
the new right, you and
ings of inferiority become intensely
I are out of touch.
personal. A snob doesn't appear to
People who peruse
be someone who flings money about;
newspaper editorials
instead, unlike the ordinary person,
rather than listen to
he is confident that the future be-
bluster radio form part of a cultural
longs to him.
elite that doesn't understand the
It's not surprising that young men
hopes and hates of ordinary Ameri-
form the most conservative and anti-
cans. It isn't just those crocodile
elitist segment of the population;
lears we shed for the undeserving
they are in that crucible time of life
NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1994
poor or our prissy insistence on sepa-
rating church and state that puts us
when realities - from McJobs and
out of touch: our very existence is
the necessity of living with one's
offensive and threatening.
parents in one's 20's to the prospect
Popular resentment against elites
of three-job marriages all dim
IS an old story in America, perhaps as
hopes for self-determination.
old as the nation itself. But the story
twists and turns as the elite changes.
In Andrew Jackson's time, the hated
Rockefeller's time, they were indus-
A always, politics does sym-
bolic duty for funda-
THE
elite were landowners; in John D.
mental changes. The
fear of government
trialists.
grown out of control
Today, no one would think Sam
is like the photo-
Walton was an elitist; instead of
graphic print of a social and econom-
great wealth, the new elite possesses
ic negative - a print of the fear that
rarefied skills. It has addresses on
economic growth portends threat
the Internet rather than on Fifth Ave-
rather than opportunity, that the av-
nue: It knows how to do global as well
erage person is likely to be left out of
as local business.
the spoils.
Most Americans are shut out of
And this is a problem for us as well
this new world. Seventy percent of the
as them - enlightened and well-
adult population does not know how to
intentioned bourgeois that we are.
use a computer; most high school
When accused of being an elite, we
graduates cannot read a train sched-
fudge. Those crocodile tears for the
ule: a large minority cannot reckon
sufferings of others prove that we
simple interest on a bill.
are in touch; in the certain-to-be-
cally, America has plunged into a
The elite thrives on change, the
immortal words of our President, "I
new round of class warfare.
mass fears it. In a dynamic society,
feel your pain." (Others detect a
As ] age my crystal ball dims, but
the mass of people are constantly
certain condescension lurking in this
perhaps the only way to confront
threatened by becoming redundant,
sympathy.) Or we promise to use
Newt Gingrich & Company is to be
being passed by; all they have is their
our skills to design solutions to make
honest rather than secretive about
willingness to work. The new econ-
things better - public policy solu-
omy needs the mass of these Ameri-
tions graced almost with the com-
cans less as producers or workers
plexity of modern art. In promising
than as consumers.
to solve for the masses what they
Life on the
A new study by the Demos Insti-
have not solved for themselves, we
tute, an opinion-research organiza-
show we believe we are what they
fear we are: more competent.
Internet
Richard Sennett, professor of history
Class has been the dirty secret of
and sociology at New York Universi-
American history, denied by prom-
vs. McJobs.
11. IS author of "Flesh and Stone:
ISCS of individual freedom, by
The Body and the City in Western
dreams of upward mobility and by
Civilization."
memories of solid communities and
coherent families - memories that
this warfare, for the right knows how
prove on inspection only to be recov-
to make mincemeat of privileged
ered-memory fantasies.
people who are evasive or paternal-
The plain fact is that in a new
istic. Yes, America is a divided soci-
stage of capitalism, class divides
ety, and a secure, confident future
Americans as ruthlessly as it did in
belongs only to the educated few.
the age of the Robber Barons: politi-
Now what?
A8 Wednesday, December 28, 1994
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
GOP sweep claims 30-year veterans
By Emie Freda
AJC
IT'S FACT
STAFF WRITER
Rep. Sidney Yates (D-III), 85, will be the only House member
The landslide that swept in a Republican House for the first
in the upcoming 104th Congress who was there the last time the
time since 1952 claimed four Democratic old-timers who have
Republicans took control of the House - in the 83rd Congress.
been in Congress for at least 30 years: Jack Brooks (Texas, 21
That was when Democrat Sam Rayburn of Texas surrendered the
terms), Thomas Foley (Washington, 15 terms), Dan Rostenkow-
speaker's gavel to Joseph Martin of Massachusetts on Jan 3,
ski-(Illinois, 18 terms) and Neal Smith (Iowa,
1953. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va), 77, was a freshman House
18 terms).
member then
It is unusual for House incumbents with
SAY IT AGAIN
such seniority to be ousted in 2 general election.
In the past dozen elections prior to this one, only
"Fred Thompson is really a Gucci-wearing, Lincoln-driving,
16 House members ving more than 10 terms
Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon-spreading Washington special in-
were defeated.
terest lobbyist." - Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), who evidently
16 Terms: Robert Kastenmeier (D-
doesnot believe that the man who beat him for a seat in the Senate
Wis.), 1990.
was the good ol' boy portrayed in Thompson's TV ads.
15 Ter as: Alvin O'Konski (R-Wis.), 1972:
14 Terms: Fernand St Germain (D-R.L),
MR. SPEAKER
1988
Jack Brooks
House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich is taking some quiet time
13 Terms: Lud Ashley (D-Ohio), 1980; Frank Thompson
with his family in Georgia, and has nothing scheduled until
(D-NJ.), 1980; Elford Cederberg (R-Mich.), 1978; Bill Widnall
Thursday.
(R-N.J.), 1974.
12 Terms: William Bray (R-Ind), 1974; AI Ullman (D-Ore.),
MARCHING BEHIND THE LEADER: Rep. Sherwood
1980.
Boehlert (R-N.Y.) is on what one night call the left fringe of the
11 Terms: John Brademas (D-Ind), 1980; Clarence Long
Rephblican Party, siding with Democrats on many social issues.
(D-Md), 1984; Joel Broyhill (R-Va), 1974; John McFall (D-
But Boehlert says he and other middle-of-the-road Republicans
Calif,), 1978; Sam Devine (R-Ohio), 1980; Joseph Minish (D-
will be marching to the conservative tune of the new speaker. "T'll
NJT 1984; Harold Johnson (D-Calif.), 1980.
be very surprised if you find any dissenting voices among those
who wear the label of moderate," he told The New York Times.
JUST A LITTLE BIT BLUER: The White House Blue Room is
"We may have a difference with the leadership on some of the so-
slated for a facelift First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton told Larry
cial agenda, like choice or school prayer. But in many respects,
King on CNN that 'it's a little bit tired; ir's a little bit in need of a
they' peripheral to the general theme: less government, reduced
little bit of upgrading." The Blue Room, one of the state receiving
intrusion into our private lives, less regulation"
rooms there also are the Green Room and Red Room has not
been extensively redecorated in about 25 years, and some of the
COULD IT GET THAT UGLY? The new issue of GQ maga-
furnishings, including the ancient blue-tinged rug, are wearing
zine has an article on those many Americans "who revel in villainy
out: Even though it's called the blue room, the walls are mostly
and even get paid for it," titled "The Triumph of Evil" The piece
cream colored, with antique blue accents. "It will be moreible
includes a separate item on the new speaker, and what would hap-
when we finish," Clinton said. "This will be a blue room."
pen "if Newt wanted to impeach Bill" But first Gingrich would
ELSEWHERE
have to show President Clinton had violated his oath of office by
committing a crime or failing in some egregious manner to carry
The Immigration and Naturalization Service will centralize the
out his duties. GQ called it "the ugliest partisan scenario of them
issuance of work cards for aliens nest year, and for the first time
all."
issue them through the mail (to reduce the temptation for employ-
ees to take bribes, according to The New York Times). A Postal
SHOW A VILLAIN? USE SEX: The co-author of Gingrich's
Service survey showed stamp collectors saved nearly 48 million
novel in progress, "1945," has been thrust into a swirl of contro-
stamps of the moon landing this year, more than any other design
versy since revelations of an explicit extramarital love scene in the
but nowhere near the record 124 million Elvis Presley stamps
obening chapter. That's because Bill Forstchen is a history pro-
saved in 1993. Susie Rodriguez, press secretary to Rep. Cyn-
fessor at Montreat-Anderson College, a religious school in Ashe-
thia McKinney (D-Ga), is leaving her post to become national
ville, N.C. Forstchen has had 18 novels published, most of them
field director for Catholics for a Free Choice, an abortion rights
science fiction. He said the sex was used in the Gingrich book sim-
advocacv group. Republican plans to trim.
plyzo portray the immorality of one of the book's villains, "There
the size or committees may mean that Sen. Ben
19 about as much steam in this book as you can find in a teakettle
Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, the only
sitting on a glacier in Antarctica."
Native American in Congress, may be removed
from the Indian Affairs Committee because he
THE INK KEEPS FLOWING: Gingrich is continuing his
is the newest Democrat on the panel.
Sen.
starring role as a media darling. Knight-Ridder Newspapers be-
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va), whom Roll Call news-
gantoday a five-part series on the man, his philosophy and career.
paper calls the Senate's "most erudite orator,"-
The Sinewspaper group's news service has about 350 clients. Just
managed to include quotations from every one
the weekend before last, The Washington Post began a similar se-
of Shakespeare's plays in his congressional ad-:
ries, in four huge parts.
dresses this year. Peggy Noonan, star Ben
speechwriter - "read my lips," "kinder, Nighthorse
- From stoff. news services and published reports;
gentier nation," "thousand points of light" for Campbell
contributing: Kathey Alexander. Jeanne Cummings
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, has signed with
Random House to do a book on the first 100 days of the new Repub-
lican Congress.
No hostage games in Korea
In dispatching Deputy Assistant Secretary
patient nuclear diplomacy of the past year.
Thomas Hubbard to Pyongyang, President
And, no doubt, U.S. circumspection played a
Clinton has assigned the State Department's
part in speeding the release of the body of
most experienced hand on North Korea to the
Hilemon, presumably killed when the copter
challenging mission of extricating Chief War-
was downed.
rant Officer Bobby Hall from an undeserved
Washington's only concession up to this
captivity there.
point is a justiflable one, It admits that Hall
As much as any American visiting the her-
and Hilemon made an accidental incursion that
mit regime's capital, Hubbard knows how to
Washington regrets - but no more. Their inno-
phrase the Clinton administration's message
cent mistake on a routine training flight is not
for maximum effect. Let us hope the substance
cause for an apology.
of that message is sufficiently firm.
That's right, innecent. Considering the area
The North Koreans should not underesti-
was covered by a heavy and fresh snowfall, it is
mate the seriousness of holding on to the cap-
highly plausible that the two of them, both
tured helicopter pilot. Strange though it may
fairly new to the demilitarized zone, became
seem to that collectivized lot, America cher-
disoriented and thus flew Into forbidden air-
ishes its own as individuals.
space: The espionage premise - that Hall and
The Pyongyang regime must also be made to
Hilmon might be trying to spot North Korea's
understand, however, there are lengths to
underground military assets under an addi-
which Washington will not be dragged: It can-
tional three-foot layer of snow - seems
not and will not be yanked about by thugs dan-
ludicrous.
gling a hostage before us.
Washington-shouldn't budge an inch on the
Unfortunately for Hall, that appears to be
spying accusation. But it also has to make clear
the role at least some North Koreans have
to the North Koreans it has three other
scripted for him. The initial official silence
imperatives:
about repatriating him, the protracted military
It won't be whipsawed in a policy struggle
investigation O1 the overflight and, most recent-
between Pyongyang's civilian and military
ly, the charges that he and his copilot, David
factions.
Hilemon, were on a spy mission all suggest a
It won't allow North Korea to try to draw
AIO Wednesday, December 28, 1994
guarded near-term outlook for Hall.
it into more direct. communication with
Up to now, Washington's communications
Pyongyang to the detriment of its relationship
with Pyongyang have been low-key and civil,
with Seoul.
as they should be. The Clinton administration,
Finally, it won't stand for an attempt to
correctly, basn't wanted to give North Korea's
use Hall to extract add-ons to the nuclear
more bellicose elements, presumably from the
agreement signed and sealed two months ago:
military high command, an excuse to undo the
A deal is a deal.
THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION
When prayer offends believers
For 125 Years the South's Standard Newspaper
The best arguments against public school
Many who take their faith seriously under-
prayer often come not from agnostics or athe-
stand this from a religious perspective as well
ists but rather from believers who take their
as civil libertarians do from a constitutional
religion seriously. A case in point is the year-
perspective. According to the Rev. Jesse Jack-
long effort of a mother in the tiny town of Ecru,
son, politicians now calling for school prayer
Miss., to make the local school system quit sub-
are like those hypocrites mentioned in the
jecting her children to the Southern Baptist
Bible who make a public display of their
version of prayers and Bible study.
prayers.
Lisa Herdahl is a Lutheran in an area domi-
Many proponents of school prayer argue that
nated by Southern Baptists. Her five children
piety should be taught as a part of citizenship,
were baptized Lutherans. They learn their
as it was historically. They are wrong, given
prayers at home, she says. She tried to per-
what
suade the local school to stop the student-read
Americans now know about the im ortance and
prayers over the intercom and the lessons from
difficulties of sectarian distinctions
visiting Bible teachers, since she knew both
What schools ought to teach, instead, is rell-
practices to be illegal.
gion as a subject, presented fairly and histori-
But the school system dug in its heels. Over
cally. This is the goal of a guidebook recently
time, her children were ostracized for not par-
issued by The Freedom Forum First Amend-
ticipating. One was called "football head" after
ment Center at Vanderbilt University.
a)teacher put earphones on the child to drown
If the schools had done a better job of teach-
out the prayers.
ing about religion - for example, the differ-
Last week, Herdahi filed sult in federal
ences between civil and sectarian religion and
court.
the roles each has played in American history
She has a good case, A federal court has
- there would be more caution about a recent
already struck down a Mississippi law that per-
Republican proposal to amend the Constitution
milted student-initiated prayers that were
to permit school prayer. More people would
ostensibly nonproselytizing and nonsectarian.
know better.
Public schools have no authority to carve out a
Without such constitutional safeguards,
time for religious devotion or to determine
places such as Ecru, Miss. where a single
what "nonproselytizing" or "nonsectarian"
religion dominates - will tend to mix civil and
mean.
sectarian religion in ways that damage both.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
STEPHEN NEUWIRTH
AN
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE ON
RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
Attached is a draft of the directive that you will announce during your speech this
Wednesday on religious liberty.
The directive sets forth the extent to which the First Amendment permits and protects
religious expression in schools, and directs Secretary Riley to disseminate these principles to
all public school districts by the start of the coming school year. The memorandum also
directs Secretary Riley to provide guidance to school districts concerning the Administration's
interpretation of the Equal Access Act.
You agreed to issue such a directive at a recent Oval Office meeting that included,
among others, the Vice President, Secretary Riley and Linda Lader.
The Justice Department has approved the form and content of the attached directive.
DOJ has advised us that the principles set forth in the directive reflect settled matters of
Constitutional law. Judge Mikva has similarly approved the directive.
The directive also reflects the agreement reached earlier this year by a broad coalition
of religious groups, ranging from People for the American Way, the ACLU and the
American Jewish Congress on the "left," to the Christian Legal Society and the National
Association of Evangelicals both of which favor a constitutional amendment on religion --
on the "right."
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
July , 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Religious freedom is perhaps the most precious of all American liberties -- called by
many our "first freedom." Many of the first European settlers in North America sought
refuge from religious persecution in their native countries. Since that time, people of faith
and religious institutions have played a central role in the history of this nation. In the First
Amendment, our Bill of Rights recognizes the twin pillars of religious liberty: the
Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion, and the Constitutional prohibition
on the establishment of religion by the state. Our nation's founders knew that religion helps
to give our people the character without which a democracy cannot survive. Our founders
also recognized the need for a space of freedom between government and the people that
the government must not be permitted to coerce the conscience of any individual or group.
In the over 200 years since the First Amendment was included in our Constitution,
religion and religious institutions have thrived throughout the United States. In 1993, I was
proud to reaffirm the historic place of religion when I signed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which restores a high legal standard to protect the exercise of religion from
being inappropriately burdened by government action. In the greatest traditions of American
citizenship, a broad coalition of individuals and organizations came together to support the
fullest protection for religious practice and expression.
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
I share the concern and frustration that many Americans feel about situations where
the protections accorded by the First Amendment are not recognized or understood. This
problem has manifested itself in our nation's public schools. It appears that many school
officials, teachers and parents have assumed that religious expression of any type is either
inappropriate, or forbidden altogether, in public schools.
As our courts have reaffirmed, however, nothing in the First Amendment converts our
public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at
the schoolhouse door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the consciences
of our students, or to convey official endorsement of religion, the government's schools also
may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
I have been advised by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education
that the First Amendment permits -- and protects -- a greater degree of religious expression in
public schools than many Americans may now understand. The Departments of Justice and
Education have advised me that, while application may depend upon specific factual contexts
and will require careful consideration in particular cases, the following principles are among
those that apply to religious expression in our schools:
Student prayer and religious discussion: The Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students
therefore have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious
discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.
For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before
meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable
disruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose
rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they may not
structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech.
Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school
activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable
setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways,
may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules
of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to,
and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard
to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech
that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students.
Students may also participate in before or after school events with religious content,
such as "see you at the flag pole" gatherings, on the same terms as they may
participate in other non-curriculum activities on school premises. School officials,
acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in
such an event.
The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from
discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen, or to
compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should
ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity.
Graduation prayer and baccalaureates: School officials may not mandate or organize
prayer at graduation, nor organize religious baccalaureate ceremonies. If a school
generally opens its facilities to private groups, it must make its facilities available on
the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services.
2
DRAFT -- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
A school may not extend preferential treatment to baccalaureate ceremonies and may
in some instances be obliged to disclaim official endorsement of such ceremonies.
Official neutrality regarding religious activity: Teachers and school administrators,
when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by
the Establishment Clause from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from
participating in such activity with students. Teachers and administrators also are
prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from
soliciting or encouraging anti-religious activity.
Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but
they may teach about religion. The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible
(or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United
States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is
permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature and social studies.
Public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their religious aspects.
Schools may celebrate the secular aspects of holidays but may not observe holidays as
religious events or promote such observance by students.
Student assignments: Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of
homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination
based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work
should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, and
against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.
Religious literature: Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their
schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that
is unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may impose the same
reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutional restrictions on distribution
of religious literature as they do on non-school literature generally, but they may not
single out religious literature for special regulation.
Religious excusals: Subject to applicable state laws, schools enjoy substantial
discretion to excuse individual students from lessons that are objectionable to the
student or the students' parents on religious or other conscientious grounds. School
officials may neither encourage nor discourage students from availing themselves of an
excusal option.
Released time: Subject to applicable state laws, schools have the discretion to dismiss
students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage
or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. Schools may not
3
DRAFT -- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
allow religious instruction by outsiders on school premises during the school day.
Teaching values: Though schools must be neutral with respect to religion, they may
play an active role with respect to teaching civic values and virtue, and the moral code
that holds us together as a community. The fact that some of these values are held
also by religions does not make it unlawful to teach them in school.
Student garb: Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the
same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious
messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather are subject to the same
rules as generally apply to comparable messages. When wearing particular attire,
such as yarmulkes and head scarves, during the school day is part of students'
religious practice, schools generally may not prohibit the wearing of such items.
I hereby direct the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General,
to use appropriate means to ensure that public school districts and school officials in the
United States are informed, by the start of the coming school year, of the principles set forth
above.
THE EQUAL ACCESS ACT
The Equal Access Act is designed to ensure that, consistent with the First
Amendment, student religious activities are accorded the same access to public school
facilities as are student secular activities. Based on decisions of the federal courts, as well as
its past interpretations of the Act and the positions it has advocated in pending litigation, the
Department of Justice has advised me of its position that the Act should be interpreted as
providing, among other things, that:
General provisions: Student religious groups at public secondary schools have the
same right of access to school facilities as is enjoyed by other comparable student
groups. Under the Equal Access Act, a school receiving federal funds that allows one
or more student non-curriculum-related clubs to meet on its premises during
noninstructional time may not refuse access to student religious groups.
Prayer services and worship exercises covered: A meeting, as defined and protected
by the Equal Access Act, may include a prayer service, Bible reading, or other
worship exercise.
Equal access to means of publicizing meetings: A school receiving federal funds
must allow student groups meeting under the Act to use the school media -- including
the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board -- to
announce their meetings on the same terms as other noncurriculum-related student
4
DRAFT -- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
groups are allowed to use the school media. Any policy concerning the use of school
media must be applied to all noncurriculum related student groups in a
nondiscriminatory matter. Schools, however, may inform students that certain groups
are not school sponsored.
Lunch-time and recess covered: A school creates a limited open forum under the
Equal Access Act, triggering equal access rights for religious groups, when it allows
students to meet during their lunch periods or other noninstructional time during the
school day, as well as when it allows students to meet before and after the school day.
I hereby direct the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General,
to use appropriate means to ensure that public school districts and school officials in the
United States are informed, by the start of the coming school year, of these interpretations of
the Equal Access Act.
5
RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER
OF REFORM JUDAISM
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
INITIALS: RUR DATE: 08/01/14
Personal and Confidential
November 18, 1994
The Honorable William J. Clinton
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
The Religious Action Center
pursues social justice and
Dear Mr. President,
religious liberty by
mobilizing the American
Jewish Community and
I am speaking ironically, on church-state relations, at the Council of
serving as its advocate
in the nation's capital
Jewish Federations General Assembly conference at which 3000 Jewish
leaders across America are gathered. I cannot describe to you the
2027 Massachusetts Ave, NW
intensity of the waves of concern that swept the conference two days
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-2800
ago when reports first circulated of your comments on school prayer --
heard by many to indicate you might be open to a constitutional
Rabbi David Saperstein
Director and Counsel
amendment on school prayer. Nor can I adequately describe the
community wide sigh of relief that swept the conference as news of
Rabbi Lynne Landsberg
yesterday's clarification spread.
Associate Director
Evely Laser Shiensky,
The intensity of the emotions and concerns was rooted in two factors.
Chairperson
Commission on Social Action
First, the Jewish community has enormous faith in you and your
of Reform Judaism
leadership. Precisely because religion plays such an important role
in your personal life and because you have been so passionately
Rabbi Eric Yoffie
Director
eloquent about the paramount importance of religious liberty to
Commission on Social Action
America, there is a special trust in you. I hope you know the depth
of Reform Judaism
and warmth of my community's feelings for you and can therefore
understand that our concern about the initial statement was keener
than it might otherwise have been.
The Religious Action Center
is under the auspices of
the Commission on Social
Second, for me personally, for the entire Jewish community, issues on
Action of Reform Judaism,
separation of church and state and religious liberty are survival
a joint instrumentality of
the Central Conference of
issues. They go to the core of what has made America great and what
American Rabbis and
the Union of American
has made America uniquely welcoming to the Jew. In every other land,
Hebrew Congregations
we Jews have known preferred and established religions. Here, because
with its affiliates;
American Conference
of separation of church and state, relatively none. In other lands,
of Cantors,
Association of Reform
we have known attended persecution and discrimination; in America,
Zionists of America,
National Federation of
relatively none. Even in nations where state endorsement is benign
Temple Brotherhoods,
and non-coersive, those who do not share the endorsed faith are made
National Federation of
Temple Sisterhoods,
to feel like outsiders. In America, the Jew and the Catholic, the
North American Federation
of Temple Youth.
Baptist and the Buddhist, have all been uniquely welcome.
Above all, it is the wall of separation that has kept government out
of regulating and organizing religion, allowing religion and religious
The Honorable William J. Clinton
Page Two
November 18, 1994
freedom to flourish with a diversity and strength in America, unmatched
anywhere in the world.
And above all, calls for organized school prayer (as opposed to truly voluntary
prayer that is already protected by the Constitution) -- prayer that will not
be and should not be Jewish or any other particular kind of prayer -- are
perceived as a threat to our most precious freedoms.
When we begin to chip at the wall, we weaken it against the pressure of those
who would dismantle it altogether. When Mr. Gingrich threatens to tamper, for
the first time in our 205 year history, with the Bill of Rights, it sends
shivers of fear to all who cherish those rights.
Therefore, thank you for the clarification and the strong stand you are taking.
We now need to rally the vast number of religious leaders and people who
recognize the importance of separation of church and state. With your
leadership in preserving the Constitution, I know that we will prevail.
B'shalom,
DCd David Saperstein
Republicans have dominated the public debate. Gingrich, in
forcing them to make offsetting spending cuts to meet the
particular, has given a series of high-profile speeches
existing budget caps.
outlining his vision of a GOP-led transformation of
But the more moderate Senate Republican leadership is
American politics, beginning with a dramatic restructuring
quietly horrified by the budgetary math behind the more
of the House.
conservative House Republican economic agenda, and is
But during the first full week after the mid-term
fearful of Gingrich's efforts to politicize the CBO in
elections that swept the Republicans to power, not a
order to achieve his goals. Senate Majority
single leading Democrat called a news conference to rebut
Leader-in-waiting Bob Dole, R-Kan., and incoming Senate
the Republican onslaught.
Budget Committee Chairman Pete Dominici, R-N.M., are
On Thursday, a few congressional Democrats made the
apparently looking for a more traditional CBO director who
first tentative effort to break the silence, promising
will not scare the nation's financial markets into
cooperation with the new GOP majority but warning that
believing that Republicans are once again poised to
some conservative Republicans appear to have misread the
increase the deficit.
mandate they received at the polls.
So far, Gingrich has approached at least one very
Some congressional Democrats acknowledged they have
conservative economist former Reagan administration
been too shell-shocked by the electoral drubbing they
budget director Jim Miller. But sources say Miller, who
suffered and too preoccupied with their own minority
ran unsuccessfully against Oliver North this year for the
leadership battles to plot a unified new course for the party.
Republican senatorial nomination in Virginia, is leaning
The Hill's most powerful surviving Democrat, House
toward rebuffing the job feelers.
Majority Leader Gephardt, is giving no interviews. ''It's
But Republican politics in both chambers is already
not appropriate right now," said Gephardt spokeswoman
complicating the selection process. Normally, the CBO
Laura Nichols. ``It is not an accident that we are not
director is chosen jointly by the two chairmen of the
answering everything."
House and Senate budget committees. But in the House, Rep.
John Kasich, R-Ohio, the likely budget committee chairman,
is under fire from conservative Republicans for his
decision earlier this year to vote for President Clinton's
crime bill. Kasich, who has been the ranking Republican on
Conservative Battle Brewing Over
the budget panel, needs support from conservatives to
Next Budget Office Chief (Washn)
continue to serve in a leadership position on the budget
By James Risen=(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
panel, and so needs to show his willingness to cooperate
WASHINGTON A critical internal battle is shaping up
with Gingrich and Armey on budget matters. Thus, while he
between the cadre of militant Republicans who will control the
is not a supply-side ideologue, he is expected to allow
House of Representatives next year and their more moderate
Gingrich and Armey to determine the selection from the
House side.
counterparts in the Senate over the appointment of a new
director for the influential Congressional Budget Office.
But Dominici is a traditional Republican who believes
And the outcome of that struggle, one of the first to emerge
that tax cuts need to be offset with spending cuts, and
since the Republican electoral avalanche on Nov. 8, could set
will certainly fight Gingrich on the issue. He is said to
the tone for the broader fight looming within the party for
be urging the selection of Bill Hoaglund, his chief budget
aide and a moderate on fiscal issues.
control of the Republican economic agenda in the new
Congress.
"This is just a minor example of what we are going to see
from now on, which is that there are going to be very serious
policy tensions between the Senate and House Republicans,"
Class-Day Opener: GOP Proposal to
said one source close to the CBO selection process.
Restore Prayer in School (Washn)
The selection of a new CBO director to succeed outgoing
By David G. Savage=
director Robert Reischauer, whose term expires in January,
(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
has become a hot political issue on Capitol Hill this week
WASHINGTON The leading Republican proposal to restore
because House Speaker-in-waiting Newt Gingrich and his
"voluntary prayer" in public schools would let local school
allies in the House want to install in the powerful post an
authorities require the saying of a prayer at the beginning of
ideological Republican who subscribes to Gingrich's own
each class day. Students who do not wish to participate could
supply-side philosophy.
sit silently or leave the room, its prime House sponsor says.
Gingrich and incoming House Majority Leader Dick Armey,
The amendment would not make prayer mandatory, nor
R-Texas, believe that Reischauer was overly partisan in
would state or federal governments be entitled to compose an
favor of the Democratic congressional leadership, and so
official school prayer. However, its sponsors said local school
now feel they deserve to have one of their own in the job.
officials would have wide latitude to encourage and institute
A conservative supply-sider at the helm of CBO could be
school prayers.
expected to use the powers of the supposedly nonpartisan
"We want to let local school boards make the
agency to declare that Republican tax cuts actually raise
decision," said Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla., who
federal revenues and thus would not worsen the deficit.
introduced the constitutional amendment on school prayer.
House Republican leaders, for example, want a CBO
"It does not require that prayers be held. But why should
director who shares their belief that a capital gains tax
an ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) attorney from New
cut for corporate America would actually raise tax
York City tell the people in Chandler, Oklahoma, that they
revenues, and thus lower the deficit, because it would
cannot have prayer in the public schools? That's the
give businesses an incentive to invest more in plant and
essence of it."
equipment and hire more workers and so create new
Istook and other sponsors declined to spell out exactly
economic growth.
how the system they envision would work in practice.
Congress has given the CBO the authority to make the
For instance, it is not clear whether school boards
official decisions on such budgetary matters for purposes
might be permitted to adopt a prayer or several prayers
of complying with the constraints of the current deficit
The Lord's Prayer or a Psalm to be used throughout a
reduction agreement. So a supply-side ruling from CBO
school system. Another possibility would allow individual
would give Republicans the ability to cut taxes without
teachers or even students to choose the prayer for their
classroom or school, perhaps rotating among a group.
Ten years ago, at the height of his popularity, then
If nothing else, the new Republican proposal has
President Ronald Reagan pressed the Senate to approve an
prompted sharp dispute over how to define voluntary
identically worded amendment, but it fells 11 votes short
prayer.
of the needed two-thirds majority. At the time, many
"Clearly when (President) Clinton speaks about
senators said they decided to oppose the amendment when 50
voluntary prayer, he means something quite different from
prominent church organizations, representing Protestants,
(House Speaker-to-be Newt) Gingrich and Istook," said
Catholics and Jews, announced their opposition.
Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the
Among the "no" votes then were seven Republicans who
American Way, a liberal group that opposes
will return to Capitol Hill in January. They are Sens.
school-sponsored prayers.
John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, William S. Cohen of Maine,
Monday, Gingrich, the Georgia Republican, turned a new
Slade Gorton of Washington, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Nancy
spotlight on the school prayer issue when he said he would
Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, Bob Packwood of Oregon and
seek a vote ``before the July 4 break" on the proposed
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
amendment introduced by Istook.
Asked about the proposal in Jakarta Tuesday, Clinton
said: "I'll be glad to discuss it with them. I want to
see what the details are. It depends on what it
says."
Feinstein Expected to Claim
Clinton's remarks were interpreted by some, especially
those opposed to school prayer, as moving farther toward
Victory in Senate Race (Sacramento)
the Republican position than his words explicitly said.
By Paul Jacobs and Ted Johnson=
Thursday, the White House emphasized the president's
(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
position is essentially the same it has been for years. He
SACRAMENTO, Calif. After watching her lead grow daily
supports a moment of silence but not a spoken prayer and
as election officials work their way through 700,000 late
not a constitutional amendment.
absentee ballots, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is
He would, however, favor a new law that ensures
expected to declare victory over her Republican challenger,
students have a right to observe "a moment of silence"
Rep. Michael Huffington, at a news conference Friday.
at their desks. ``The president has long supported a
With 220,000 ballots to be counted as of late Thursday,
moment of silence but that can be done statutorily," said
the Democratic incumbent's lead had grown to 162,000 votes
Deputy White House Counsel Joel Klein. ``He doesn't see
from just more than 123,000 a week ago. That means that
the need for a constitutional amendment."
Huffington would need more than 85 percent of the
Opposition to the proposed amendment is by no means
remaining votes in order to win.
limited to the administration and liberal groups.
Publicly, Feinstein campaign officials won't comment on
Two leaders of Christian organizations said Thursday
whether she plans to proclaim victory at her San Francisco
they oppose the Republican amendment as it is now drawn
news conference.
because it would give local governments too much power
"She'll make comments about the latest vote tally and
over prayer.
talk a bit about her vote," was all that Feinstein
"When the government sponsors prayer, that's not good
campaign spokesman Bill Chandler would say.
news for religion," said Steven McFarland, director of
Huffington, who was en route to Washington late
the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious
Thursday, could not be reached for comment. But his
Freedom. ``What do you do if you're in Utah and 98 percent
campaign communications director, Jennifer Grossman, said
of the class is Mormon and you are a Jew or a Catholic or a
the congressman from Santa Barbara had no plans to concede
fundamentalist Christian? It's dangerous for religious
until all the votes were counted.
freedom because there is an element of coercion
At the close of the business day Thursday, the
involved."
secretary of state's office had Feinstein leading with
Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian
3,835,405 votes to Huffington's 3,674,220 with about
Coalition, said he too is concerned about government
220,000 absentee ballots still to be counted.
sponsorship of prayer.
"We are completely opposed to any prayer that would be
composed by, directed by or supervised by the
New Assassination Attempt Charge
government," Reed said. "We support nonsectarian,
Lodged Against Duran (Washn)
student-initiated prayer that is voluntary. That is a free
By Robert L. Jackson=
speech issue, not a religion issue."
(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
The amendment, introduced by Istook with 44 cosponsors,
says: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to
WASHINGTON Federal prosecutors escalated their case
prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or
Thursday against the man accused of peppering the White
other public institutions. No person shall be required by
House with gunfire last month, charging Francisco Martin
Duran with attempting to assassinate President Clinton.
the United States or by any state to participate in prayer.
Neither the United States nor any state shall compose the
U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. told reporters that ''we
words of any prayer to be said in public schools."
have sufficient information now" to support the more serious
If approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate, and
charge, even though officials repeatedly have said Duran fired
three-fourths of the state legislatures, the amendment
randomly at the White House on the afternoon of Oct. 29 and
would reverse a series of Supreme Court rulings that since
that Clinton was never in danger.
1962 have barred officially sponsored school prayers.
The indictment, brought by a grand jury, carries a maximum
Presumably, because of the phrase, "other public
possible punishment of life imprisonment, a much-harsher
institutions," it would also allow official prayers in
sentence than Duran faced under the 10 previous charges
government offices, prisons and courtrooms.
lodged against him, which include weapons violations,
"The only restriction that I see (in the Republican
destruction of federal property and assaulting law enforcement
officers.
proposal) is that the school board or the teacher can't
write the prayer. But it would allow them to select a
Duran, 26, pleaded innocent to the attempted
prayer," said Mincberg.
assassination charge Thursday afternoon in an appearance
before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey. The judge
FED, From A1
The large Fed move was general-
ly praised by Wall Street analysts
Fed Boosts
who fear the destabilizing effect of
rising inflation on financial markets.
"This is a good move by the Fed,"
said Scott Pardee, chairman at Ya-
Key Rates
maichi International (America) Inc.
in New York. "It has raised interest
The Fed also said that the share
rates to levels that will have a con-
of total production capacity in use
straining effect on the economy. It
last month reached 84.9 percent,
0.75 Point
helps rein in the possibility of infla-
the highest percentage in more than
tion."
14 years, up from 84.5 percent in
Ray Stone of Stone & McCarthy,
September.
a financial markets research firm in
Meanwhile, the nation's unem-
Unexpectedly Large
Princeton, N.J., said the size and
ployment rate fell in October to 5.8
Hike Intended to Slow
timing of the action should have a
percent. Many economists and Fed
quick impact on the economy.
officials say that a further drop in
"I think we will probably start to
joblessness could cause wages to be-
Inflation, Economy
see the economic consequences of
gin to rise more rapidly and push in-
this quickly," Stone said. "This is a
flation up a notch.
cumulative increase of 2.5 percent-
It was reports such as those that
By John M. Berry
Al
age points in the federal funds rate
the Fed had in mind when it an-
Washington Post Staff Writer
nounced its action on rates yester-
The Federal Reserve raised two
day afternoon following the meeting
key short-term interest rates by
The size of the
of its policy-making group, the Fed-
three-quarters of a percentage point
eral Open Market Committee.
yesterday in an effort to slow stub-
increase suggested
"These measures were taken
bornly strong economic growth and
against the background of evidence
keep inflation from getting worse.
the Fed probably
of persistent strength in economic
The unexpectedly large rate in-
activity and high and rising levels of
crease—the biggest single hike
intends to leave
resource utilization," the Fed said.
since the early 1980s-indicated
"In these circumstances, the Federal
that Fed officials have been sur-
rates unchanged for
Reserve views these actions as nec-
prised by the strength of economic
some time.
essary to keep inflation contained,
growth since they last raised rates
and thereby foster sustainable eco-
by a half-point in mid-August, ana-
nomic growth."
lysts said. Many analysts and traders
had anticipated a half-point increase
this year The odds are that it
Pardee of Yamaichi International
will have more influence on consum-
said the three-quarter point increase
yesterday.
er thinking than the earlier moves,
"obviously was a compromise move"
And the size of the increase also
and it comes at a time when consum-
between the Fed officials who want-
suggested the Fed probably intends
er spending is particularly signifi-
ed a half point increase and those
to leave rates unchanged for some
cant."
who wanted rates a full percent-
time-perhaps until a policy-making
session set for Jan. 31-rather than
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bent-
age point.
raising them again before Christmas.
sen neither praised nor condemned
But the size means "that the Fed
the Fed move but said the Clinton
can take a look at Christmas sales
Major banks quickly raised their
administration and the Fed "share a
and the rest of the fourth quarter
prime rates to 8.5 percent from 7.75
common goal of steady growth with
before deciding what to do next,"
percent, meaning that many con-
low inflation."
Pardee said. "If it had gone only hålf
THE WASHINGTON POST WIDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994
sumer and business borrowers soon
While inflation has remained mod-
a point, it would have left open the
will be paying more on loans. Rates
est, Fed policy makers are con-
question of whether they would raise
on many home equity loans and
credit card balances are tied to the
cerned that it will get worse if eco-
rates again next month."
prime, as are many business loans,
nomic growth, which has been
especially those to small- and medi-
running about 3.5 percent this year,
ON THE RISE
um-sized firms.
is not slowed to around 2.5 percent,
Financial markets gyrated in re-
a pace regarded as consistent with a
T
he Federal Reserve's
sponse to the Fed's rate increase,
stable unemployment rate rather
than one that is falling.
increase of the federal
the sixth this year, but the Dow
Jones industrial average finished
Many forecasters predict that
funds rate by three-quarters
down slightly for the day while bond
growth will slow in 1995 as a result
of a percentage point led to
prices were generally little changed.
of this year's rate increases and nat-
major banks increasing the
[Details, Page C2.]
ural forces in the economy. Howev-
prime rate by the same
Following the pattern set this
er, many analysts also say the econo-
amount.
my has enough momentum at the
year of announcing the results of its
10%
moment that the Fed will eventually
policy-making sessions, the Fed said
have to raise rates further to
9
Prime rate
that it raised its target for the feder-
achieve the desired slowing.
8
al funds rate, the rate financial insti-
tutions charge each other for over-
Just before Fed policy makers be-
7
night loans, to 5.5 percent from 4.75
gan their session yesterday, the
Commerce Department reported
6
percent. It also increased the dis-
count rate, the rate Fed banks
that retail sales rose an unexpected-
5
charge on loans to financial institu-
ly hefty 1.1 percent last month, to
4
tions, from 4 percent to 4.75 per-
$191.2 billion, following a 0.5 per-
cent.
cent increase in September and 1.4
3
Federal funds target
The increase in the federal funds
percent jump in August. Auto sales
2
rate was the largest since January
were up 2.9 percent last month,
1982, and the hike in the less impor-
building materials 1.7 percent and
1
tant discount rate was the biggest
furniture 1.5 percent.
0
since early 1980.
Meeting that consumer demand,
FMAMJJASOND
as well as that for business products,
SOURCE: Federal Reserve Board
See FED, A18, Col. 4
has U.S. factories humming. The
THE WASHINGTON PO
Banks unlikely to increase rates
Fed itself said yesterday that the
output of U.S. factories, mines and
paid on savings accounts. Page Cl
utilities rose 0.7 percent last month.
Industrial production had dipped 0.1
percent in September but was up 0.8
percent in August.
Clinton: "There Is Room'
To Pray in Public School
White House Conciliatory Toward GOP
of Staff Leon E. Panetta met on
By Ann Devroy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Al
Capitol Hill with future Senate ma-
jority leader Robert J. Dole (R-
President Clinton yesterday
Kan.) and House speaker-to-be
opened the door to supporting a
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and said
constitutional amendment to allow
they had "opened good lines of
prayer in school as the White
communication."
House sent out a stream of concil-
Panetta listed a series of areas
iatory signals to conservative Re-
in which congressional Republi-
publicans who will run Congress.
cans and the White House might
Clinton's statements on prayer
find common ground, including the
in school, an emotional issue to
General Agreement on Tariffs and
both the right and left, came in a
Trade, which is up for a vote later
news conference in Jakarta, during
this month in a lame-duck session
a foreign trip that will keep him
of Congress, campaign finance re-
out of Washington until Sunday. In
form, political reform, the line-
the meantime, White House Chief
See PRESIDENT, A4, Col. 1
Quick House vote on balanced-budget amendment planned. Page A4
BY RAY LUSTIG- WASHINGTON POST
White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta, right, meets on Capitol HiH with Republican leaders Sen. Robert J. Dole, center, and Rep. Newt Gingrich.
President Says He Could Back School Prayer
PRESIDENT, From A1
thur Cropp, president of People for the Ameri-
Clinton engaged in no such public uncertainty,
can Way. "I think you can read the statement
choosing instead to stress areas of possible
item budget veto and welfare reform.
and insinuate he is making gestures to the right
agreement, including producing a bipartisan wel-
But he said the administration planned no re-
wing. I think it is a bad idea to cave into speak-
fare reform package, a line-item veto and reduc-
treat on its"basic economic program and 're-
er Gingrich's desires'so quickly."
ing the size of government. He also indicated
peated that it would cost "about a trillion dol-
And Richard Foltin, legislative director of
again his hope for a middle-class tax cut without
lars" to balance the federal budget while
the American Jewish Committee, said he is
"exploding" the deficit and listed GATT as the
cutting taxes and increasing defense spending.
"greatly disturbed that the president is willing
first test of cooperation between the new Repub-
"I am not saying we should not make the effort
to consider an amendment It is unneces-
lican leadership and the White House.
to balance the budget," he said, but advocates
sary and, more than that, it is gravely danger-
But the Republican leaders themselves were
of the amendment "have to be straight with the
ous." He said such an amendment would violate
colliding over the trade pact yesterday in an early
American people" about the costs.
the separation of church and state.
sign that the talk of coordination and cooperation
Clinton's answer to a school prayer question
In his news conference, the president, noting
comes before any legislative test.
provoked a cry of outrage from liberal and civil
Panetta's session yesterday, again said the
Senior administration officials yesterday said
liberties groups, although White House officials
message of the election to him was to make
that U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor
called comments from both sides of the aisle
more progress in working with the new Con-
had been working with Dole on legislation sepa-
only early political skirmishing. Asked his reac-
gress on national problems. But First Lady Hil-
rate from GATT that would create a commission
tion to Gingrich's call for passage of a constitu-
lary Rodham Clinton, in a separate session with
to monitor the World Trade Organization created
tional amendment allowing prayer in school,
reporters, seemed far more perplexed and
in the agreement and allow some sort of vote to
Clinton said he had always favored voluntary
sometimes defiant about the election results.
nullify the pact within five years if significant
prayer in school and believes "there is room" to
Hillary Clinton repeatedly said that she did
problems arise. Many conservatives have said
construct a way of promoting voluntary prayer
not know what the elections would mean to the
they fear the World Trade Organization will
in school without it coercive.
administration's policies. What they did not
usurp American prerogatives, and Dole, facing
On the wording of an amendment, he said,
mean, she said, was that Americans want large
pressure from the right, has asked the White
"Obviously, I want to reserve judgment. I want
cuts in Medicare, or inadequate childhood im-
House to help him meet those concerns.
to see the specifics, but I think this whole values
munizations, or a reversal of federal deficit cuts
But even as Dole, Panetta and Gingrich talked
debate will go forward and intensify And he
or cutbacks in college loans.
yesterday about gaining the votes necessary for
concluded, "I'll be glad to discuss it with them. I
Then, when pressed again for what the elec-
approval of GATT, incoming Senate Foreign Re-
want to see what the details are. I certainly
tions did mean, she said, "I don't know what
lations Committee chairman Jesse Helms (R-
wouldn't rule it out, it depends on what it says."
they mean.
I don't know that anyone can
N.C.) was calling on Clinton to put off the vote
White House officials could not cite a previ-
say exactly what they mean and I think that's
until next year in return for a kinder treatment
ous definitive statement from Clinton about
what we'll find out when we go forward." Her
by Helms on his other foreign policy efforts.
school prayer. During the 1992 campaign, Clin-
husband, she said, has "to stand for what he
Helms, in a letter to Clinton, asked for "mean-
ton expressed concern that such prayers would
stood for and stick to his principles" as the
ingful public hearings" on the trade pact whose
become coercive, which is the crux of why lib-
Democrats figure out how to proceed.
outlines were negotiated by two Republican ad-
eral and civil liberties groups oppose such an
In listening to the Republicans, she said, "I
ministrations and concluded by the current Dem-
amendment. Their argument is that having
don't know what is talk and what is action."
ocratic one. "If you agree," the letter notes, "I can
prayer as an official or sanctioned part of school
Asked if interests in which she has been heavily
assure that it will have an exceedingly positive ef-
activities would only cause pressure or humilia-
involved, such as health care and children's is-
fect on my making certain that the administra-
tion for students who decline to participate:
sues, would be harmed by Democratic losses
tion's positions on all foreign policy matters dur-
They also argue school authorities would end
last week, she said, "Who knows? I have no
ing the 104th Congress will be considered fairly
up constructing prayers and that students now
idea. That is why I don't know how to have
and fully."
can pray in school on their own.
these conversations." She said much of the
Civil liberties groups accused Clinton of fold-
White House staff is at the same stage-trying
Staff writers Helen Dewar and John M. Goshko
ing in his first confrontation with Gingrich on
to figure out what the elections mean to the
in Washington, and Thomas W. Lippman in
social issues. "I am really disturbed,' said Ar-
agenda and how the Republicans will proceed.
Jakarta, contributed to this report.
THE WASHINGTON POST Webnesday, NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Police Reach Out to the Homeless,
near 72d Street, and the four said
they were set for the night. One man
said he was working with another
But Often Find Efforts Rejected
officer from the squad to try to find
permanent housing. One of the other
Al
men said:
"The trouble is, you're a new unit
By N. R. KLEINFIELD
offering the same old- system.
The night was windy and brittle.
Homeless.
You've got nothing new to offer.
On Central Park West near 68th
Among other things, the. groups
There's nothing that you guys got to
Street, the police officers spotted a
worry that the unit will run the
offer that the Coalition for the Home-
grizzled man with tufted eyebrows
names of homeless people through
less, the Partnership for the Home-
hunched alongside a bench under a
the police computer to see if they are
less don't have. The old-timers out
street lamp. In the stiff breeze, his
wanted for crimes. The squad said it
here- Pops, Santa Claus we don't
windbreaker made an empty rustle.
is not doing that because it would run
want 10.go through that again."
The two officers slid out of the van
counter to its mission. If they learn
The officers left.
and headed in his direction.
of a crime, though, the officers will
They woke up a man sleeping on a
"You want to go to a drop-in cen-
make arrests. In one highly publi-
grate-at 59th Street and Amsterdam
ter tonight?" Officer James Sutton
cized case, they arrested a homeless
Avenue, but he murmured that he
said after some opening pleasant-
man accused of raping a jogger in
wanted to stay put. He said, "I'm
ries.
Central Park after another homeless
just sitting here and trying to get
"No, I'm going to stay here."
person gave the unit information
warm."
"It's going to be cold."
about the suspect.
They drove to the Chemical Bank
"Listen," the man said, "I'm go-
"Some of what they do is useful,"
branch at 72d Street and Columbus
ing to tell you the truth. See that cut
said Diane Sonde, director of Project
Avenue. The previous night, they
there on my hand. See that cut here
Reachout, which deals largely with
met a 17-year-old boy named Eddie
on my chest. I got them in the shel-
the mentally ill homeless on the Up-
who said he had been on the streets
ter."
per West Side. "But in terms of the
After a few more minutes of fruit-
questions they ask, it's kind of in-
less persuasion, the officers said
your-face. I think at times they ask
A new unit tests
they would check with him the next
questions that are much too personal
day, and then they piled back into the
in a much too assertive way. We've
van. And so, in the dark spaces of the
had complaints from homeless say-
how shields and
night, the Police Department's new
ing they ask things like name, birth
Homeless Outreach Unit continued
date, Social Security number, where
social work mix.
its circlings, offering help to the
their parents live and why they don't
needy and dispossessed though
live with them. One man said he was
few accept.
asked why he didn't shave."
since he was 14 because he had a
In its first six weeks, the unit said
She said that police officers fright-
personal problem that he wasn't
it approached roughly 1,200 people.
en many of the homeless, especially
ready to discuss. He said if he need-
About 200 accepted some service.
the mentally frail.
ed anything he would meet them
The squad of 20 officers and six
"One man told us he went with
outside the bank at 9 P.M. He wasn't
supervisors began its tours last
them because he felt if he didn't he'd
there.
month amid trepidation from advo-
be arrested," she said, adding that
They got a call that two homeless
cates for the homeless that the unit
she knows of homeless people who
men had stolen a jacket and were
would harass rather than help the
have fled to other boroughs to evade
running through the park. They said
homeless. Lieut. Delia Mannix, the
the officers. "The majority of home-
they would keep watch for them but
squad's commanding officer, said
less people have been to hell and
they did not see them.
the intention is to behave like other
back. They are very complicated
They addressed two men with
groups that assist the needy and
problems that need sensitivity and
shopping carts sitting on a bench,
patiently try to persuade people to
respond over time. I don't know
and the men looked scared and one
go to a shelter or social agency. But
about you, but 1 would have a real
said, "We're just sitting here remi-
whether shields and guns mix favor-
rough time getting into a van with
niscing." The officers told them to
ably with social service remains an
the police."
have a good night.
During a recent evening tour, Offi-
unanswered question.
Coasting through the park near
THE NEW YORK TIMES, WBDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994
cer Sutton, 31, and Officer Adam
90th Street, they spied a wicker chair
Members of the unit, modeled af-
Pernice, 30, allowed a reporter to
on fire below an overpass, throwing
ter the transit police's 12-year-old
ride with them. They traveled in a
an arc of dappling light. Officer Sut-
homeless unit, said they were un-
bluc-and-white van marked
ton clambered down to the spot. A
aware of police programs in other
"N.Y.P.D. Homeless Outreach
mattress was furled up next to the
cities of similar scope. The Police
Unit," and wore modified uniforms:
burning chair. He unrolled it and
Executive Research Forum, an or-
N.Y.P.D. T-shirts, jeans and an
found a man curled up inside. The
ganization of police executives that
N.Y.P.D. windbreaker. They carried
officer shook him awake and told
seeks to improve policing practices,
their guns. The unit wants them to be
him to get out of there.
said several other police depart-
readily identifiable as officers but
ments, including those in Seattle,
"There's ,a little kid who plays
also to appear less imposing than
with matches," the man said, his
Reno and Santa Monica, Calif., have
someone in full uniform.
tried some sort of homeless pro-
voice blurred by sleep. "I told him
Like others in the unit, Officers
gram. Miami's police force has
not to. He did it. I'm not lying. I'm
Sutton and Pernice volunteered for
from Pennsylvania."
asked for information from the New
the assignment. "It was something
"Get up out of there," Officer Sut-
York unit and is contemplating be-
interesting," Officer Sutton said.
ton said.
ginning a program.
"And I liked the aspect of helping
The officers called the Fire De-
In its first weeks, the new squad
people."
partment, and they extinguished the
has largely confined itself to one
Officer Pernice, who had also been
burning chair. Then the officers told
zone - 57th to 72d Streets, from
an Emergency Medical Services
the man that they would take him to
Lexington to Amsterdam Avenues -
technician, said, "I used to see the
a shelter. He said he hated shelters
which it said it chose for its mix of
homeless a lot with E.M.S. and I used
but would go. The officer mentioned
residential and commercial areas
to see them a lot on patrol, and I
one place, but the man said, "No,
and Central Park. Homeless groups
realized it could be me out there."
they make you sleep on three chairs
suspect the choice was affected by
The officers received about a
and someone stole my wallet there."
the number of residents and busi-
week of classroom training, and they
nesses in the area who disdain the
spent another week visiting shelters
Then he said: "I want to go to
homeless. The unit plans to wait
and agencies. They keep a thick
something close to the Metropolitan.
until it concludes it has had a dis-
manual in the van listing resources
I love the Metropolitan Museum."
cernable impact there-before mov-
and shelters. They hope to carry
Under questioning, he told the offi-
ing elsewhere.
sandwiches, but have not yet. Some
cers his name was Scott Lehman
One of the certain impediments
of the officers carry fruit donated by
and gave his birth date and Social
will be ample doses of rejection.
merchants or that they bring them-
Security number. Checking a com-
"Cops are very results-oriented,"
selves.
puterized system, they determined
Licutenant Mannix said. "They want
This night, the two officers ap-
he had last been in a shelter in
to fix things and get on. We have to
peared considerate enough. Most of
Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in 1992.
be patient. People told us one thing
the homeless people they ap-
According to city regulations, they
we had to guard against was frustra-
proached did not seem annoyed or
would have to take him there.
tion. They told us you'll get a lot of
cowed. At the same time, virtually
He got in the van, and said he was
refusals. And we have."
none of them would budge and go
hungry. Officer Sutton gave him a
Early feedback from homeless
anywhere. The unit cannot forcibly
lollipop because that was all he had.
groups has been wary. Some said
remove anyone who is not breaking
While waiting at a light, a cab
that the police officers have been
the law or posing a danger to anyone.
driver told them that a passenger
much too macho and intrusive, cate-
If someone is deemed in need of
around the corner wouldn't pay his
chizing guarded and fragile people
mental care, officers call on Project
fare. The officers drove to the spot.
rather than courting them.
Help, a city program that has au-
As soon as the reticent man saw
"I do not think that armed, uni-
thority to forcibly take people to a
them he paid the $5.75 fare.
formed police officers should be do-
hospital. So far, one woman and one
That bit of justice completed, the
ing outreach, and 1 do not believe
man have been taken to Bellevue
van headed toward Brooklyn. Mr.
they will be effective doing it," said
Hospital in this fashion.
Lehman asked if he could have an-
Josh Taylor, director of community
The officers talked to four men on
other lollipop. The officers didn't
relations for the Partnership for the
a bench just inside Central Park
hear him.
Reuters
Tearing Down Trade Barriers, After a Fashion
Wearing batik shirts, Presidents Kim Young Sam of South Korea,
Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, and Suharto of Indonesia posed with
President Clinton at an economic conference in Indonesia. Page A10.
Clinton Reaches Out to G.O.P.
On School Prayer Amendment
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Al
Special to The New York Times
JAKARTA, Indonesia, Nov. 15
ticular classroom."
President Clinton said today that he
But the President went on to say
would consider working with Con-
that he believed a prayer at an out-
take. "Amending the Bill of Rights is
gressional Republicans toward a
door football game or graduation
a grave step that has never before
constitutional amendment guaran-
ceremony would not pose such a
been taken in our nation's history,"
teeing a right to prayer in public
problem, and he said he did not want
Mr. Kropp said.
schools.
issues like prayer in schools to be-
He added: "Instead of taking his
The statement by Mr. Clinton at a
come the subject of partisan wran-
cue from Newt Gingrich, President
news conference here tonight was
gling.
Clinton should be standing firm on
the strongest evidence yet of his
"I want to see what the details
the constitutional rights of all school-
determination to accommodate
are," Mr. Clinton said of a possible
children. He knows that prayer is
overtures by Republicans, who will
Republican-backed constitutional
being turned into a political football,
control both houses of the new Con-
a bad outcome for Government and
amendment. "I certainly wouldn't
gress. Although Mr. Clinton has long
rule it out."
religion."
supported voluntary school prayer,
Some advisers to the President
The remarks by Mr. Clinton
he had not seriously discussed a con-
sought to minimize the significance
seemed a rehearsal of a new way of
stitutional amendment until today.
of his statement, saying that he sim-
presenting himself and his agenda to
The President was immediately
ply did not want to close the door on
American voters, who had so em-
denounced by civil liberties groups,
any Republican proposal so soon af-
phatically turned the Democrats
including People for the American
ter an Election Day that dealt the
aside on Nov. 8. At the same time,
Way, which called his remarks an
Democrats an enormous political
however, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
"instant cave-in."
setback.
his wife and close adviser, made
The President also pronounced
But Mr. Clinton, who has long sup-
clear in a combative interivew today
himself ready to meet with the new
ported voluntary prayer in schools,
that what happened on Election Day
Republican leadership of Congress
had never before expressed willing-
remained a sensitive subject.
soon after he returns home next
ness to back a constitutional amend-
"I really don't want to talk about
week. And he said he intended to
ment to guarantee that right, an idea
the elections," Mrs. Clinton declared
pursue "careful and open and honest
elevated to new prominence in re-
today in an interview with reporters
consultations" with the Republicans
cent days by Representative Newt
who accompanied her on a daylong
in search of a bipartisan foreign
Gingrich, the Georgia Republican
trip to an eighth-century Buddhist
policy.
who is expected to become the
temple near the city of Yogyakarta.
"It is my job to do what is best for
Speaker of the House.
She later relented somewhat, ac-
the American people in the future,"
A constitutional amendment needs
knowledging that she had joined the
Mr. Clinton said tonight as he stood
the approval of two-thirds majorities
discussions among Mr. Clinton's
before a faux tropical backdrop in a
in both houses of Congress and then
confidants about how the President
hotel ballroom. "I'll do my best to
of the legislatures of three-quarters
should plot his comeback now that
THE NEW YORK TIMES, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994
get credit for it, but the most impor-
of the states.
Congress will be under Republican
tant thing is that I do the right
As President, Mr. Clinton, a South-
control.
thing."
ern Baptist, has always been outspo-
Through today's 46-minute news
Mr. Clinton and his advisers were
ken about his faith - far more so
conference, Mr. Clinton offered no
clearly determined not to be out-
than most current Democratic lead-
clear hint about the legislative strat-
flanked in what the President de-
ers, in part because of his upbringing
egy the White House intended to
scribed tonight as "this whole values
and perhaps in part because of a
pursue in contending with a Republi-
debate," which he predicted "will
desire to break the grip of conserva-
can Congress. The advisers who ac-
intensify in the next year."
tive Christians on religious dis-
companied him here and spent their
The Supreme Court first ruled in
course in politics.
late nights and early mornings on
1962 that organized prayer in public
Mr. Clinton's political advisers see
the telephone to Washington said it
schools violated the First Amend-
that aspect of the President's per-
was far too early to make such deci-
ment prohibition against the estab-
sonality as a "bridge" to a variety of
sions.
lishment of religion by Government,
constituencies, and he has never hes-
But even as Mr. Clinton was con-
even if participation was voluntary
itated to reveal his religious side to
cluding a meeting with leaders from
in the sense that students who did not
appropriate audiences. His speeches
Asia and the Pacific at an ornate
wish to pray were allowed to remain
are often sprinkled with biblical allu-
Indonesian palace, his advisers were
silent or to leave the classroom.
sions, and Mr. Clinton talked to Bap-
working to help him send a fresh
Justice Hugo Black wrote in the
tist journalists last month about his
message home.
majority opinion that "the indirect
frequent reading of the Bible.
"I think we can work together, and
coercive pressure upon religious mi-
Mr. Gingrich's office greeted the
I am certainly willing to," he said,
norities to conform to the prevailing,
President's remarks with only
mentioning a line-item veto, over-
officially approved religion is plain."
slightly bridled enthusiasm. "It's a
haul of the welfare system, further
Subsequently, the Court found that
totally positive statement on the part
spending cuts and perhaps a middle-
Bible readings in public school class-
of the President," said Tony Blank-
class tax cut as issues on which he
rooms were unconstitutional, as
ley, Mr. Gingrich's spokesman. "I
hoped to cooperate with the Republi-
were prescribed "moments of si-
can't think of a better way to begin a
cans. "And that's the spirit in which
lence" and the inclusion of prayer at
cooperative relationship."
I will go home."
public school graduation ceremo-
Mr. Blankley said that Mr. Clin-
The Clintons, who will begin their
nies.
ton's statement lent a "tone of bipar-
return journey late Wednesday after
Constitutional amendments to
tisanship" to what had been a divid-
spending a final day in Jakarta, plan
overturn the Court's rulings on
ing social issue. And he said White
to stop in Hawaii for three days of
school prayer have been introduced
House support would probably make
rest and relaxation. But nearly all
in Congress since 1962.
an amendment on school prayer eas-
their top aides will continue on to
In answer to a reporter's question,
ier to move through state legisla-
Washington to join internal delibera-
Mr. Clinton expressed concern today
tures, most of which are still domi-
tions there. George Stephanopoulos,
that voluntary prayer might "be-
nated by Democrats.
a key political adviser, hoped tonight
come coercive to people who have
But Arthur J. Kropp, president of
to begin a three-stop hop back to the
different religious views from those
People for the American Way Action
capital tonight that would get him to
that are in the majority in any par-
Fund, told a news conference that
his office by midafternoon on
Mr. Clinton was making a big mis-
Wednesday.
November 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
MELANNE VERVEER
and
RE:
SCHOOL PRAYER
Yesterday's statement by the President signalling that he
"wouldn't rule out" a school prayer amendment triggered a barrage
of protest calls to me from friends of the Administration,
particularly those in the religious community representing many
different faith traditions. Jewish supporters, specifically,
noted candidate Clinton's opposition to "a constitutional
amendment to impose prayer in the schools," and were dismayed by
the appearance of a shift in position (regrettably reinforcing a
view that he equivocates on matters of principle). At a
luncheon for Rabin in California today, I am told that the major
topic of conversation was "disbelief and dismay" over the
President's statement. I also talked with the Clintons' pastor
in preparation for his appearance on Crossfire where he was to
argue against a school prayer amendment.
The following are points that were underscored in the calls
I received. Jim Castelli, who is serving as an unofficial
advisor to us on religions outreach, said the following: "The
President's comments on school prayer created confusion; they
won't help him with his critics; they unnerved his friends and
they won't help with Perot voters." The President could have
said any of the following to underscore his support in these
matters:
Today, public schools may hold truly neutral moments of
silence and groups can form prayer and Bible clubs that meet
in public middle and high schools (as extracurricular
activities). The President could have mentioned these as
activities he supports and he could add that he is asking
his Secretary of Education to ensure that such practices are
not being interfered with.
The President strongly supported the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act to protect the free exercise of religion
from government interference. (How does this square with a
government mandate on school prayer?)
The President could say he supports the teaching of right
and wrong, civic values, character education, etc., as well
as teaching honestly and opening in classes of history,
literature, etc. about the role religion plays.
He should not support government's violating the conscience
of students by forcing them to pray against their will or in
ways that conflict with their own faith traditions.
Religious leaders in particular made the following points:
Organized school prayer politicizes, cheapens and harms
religion. A "nonsectarian" or "watered down" prayer
secularizes religion and makes it unacceptable to those take
their faith seriously. A particular prayer approved for the
classroom sends a message of disapproval and exclusion to
those with different religious beliefs. Over 600 Baptist,
Presbyterian and Jewish religious leaders recently signed a
letter to school officials making precisely this point. (See
attached)
The vitality of religious practice in this country is due,
in large measure, to the separation of church and state.
The problem of offending religious minorities (particularly
as our society becomes increasingly diverse) and the problem
of coercion are real. There are probably Administration
officials who have their own recollections of feelings of
exclusion as pupils in situations where certain religious
practices were enforced in the public schools. Assistant
Attorney General Walter Dellinger's op-ed in the Washington
Post some months ago about his painful experience as a
Catholic pupil in a North Carolina public school confronted
with a mandated religious exercise in the classroom vividly
made this point. He and a fellow Jewish student left the
classroom each time the religious exercise was conducted,
because their parents didn't want them engaging in a
religious practice that wasn't consistent with their faith
traditions. He explained what it felt like for a child to
be an "outsider" in this context.
While polls show strong support for voluntary school prayer
(about 70%), the support dips when the consequences are
weighed. In a recent Peter Hart poll, support fell to less
than 35% if the prayers would offend religious beliefs of
"students who had different religious faiths.' Support
dropped to 25% of school officials would be involved in
"selecting or approving the prayers to be used."
Everyone who called pleaded that the White House issue no
further statements in support of a constitutional amendment of
any kind. Friends of the President could not imagine that he
really wants to offer his approval to a constitutional amendment
and a ratification process throughout the country that would only
serve to heighten religious tensions and pit one faith group
against another in what has the prospect of becoming a holy war.
The President's supporters want to believe that what he
meant to say is that he supports a moment of silence or
reflection in which a student could voluntarily pray. This, of
course, does not require a constitutional amendment.
If he had only repeated what JFK said after the Supreme
Court decision outlawing organized prayer in the schools: "What
we need is more prayer in our homes."
DISTRIBUTION:
Leon Panetta
Harold Ickes
George Stephanopolous
Bill Galston
Ab Mikva
NOV-17-1994 14:42 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.02
PROCLAIM LIBERTY LIB
BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
200 MARYLAND AVENUE. N.E.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-5797
202/544-4226
James M. Dunn
Executive Director
Nov. 17, 1994
Dear Mr. President:
You have the better part, as tough as it is, being on the other side of the world.
We must wake up in this city to read Ann Devroy.
Bless your heart! We are praying for you, and we'll double our prayers. No
one should have to answer questions about school prayer at a meeting of Asian
moguls.
Devroy takes what may have been a general remark and turns it into a
constitutional crisis.
We know you would never tinker with the First Amendment. We sure as
heck don't need anything to allow "voluntary" prayer. Kids can freely pray anytime
right now, and in groups, at school, every day if they want to.
Your instincts are right. I, too, reviewed Stephen Carter positively. We'll use
all this for a teachable moment. In your upcoming values speeches, that Ann
Walley and I are working on, you can reveal your Christian commitment, as well as
your dedication to the constitution.
Lots of us are with you and will be.
Sincerely,
Fame James M. Dunn
Alliance of Baptisis
National Baptist Convention of America
Progressive National Baplist Convention Inc.
American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.
National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Inc.
Religious Liberty Council
Baptist General Conference
National Missionary Baptist Convention
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
North American Baptist Conference
Southern Baptist state conventions & churches
OFFICERS OF THE
NAI UNAL COMMISSION
National harman
DAVID H. STRASSLER
National Director
ABRAHAMIL TOMAN
ADL
Charman
National Committee
Anti-Defamation League
HOWARD P BERKOWITZ
Chart Operating Officer
PRIER t. WILLNER
February Chairmen
KENNETHI BALKIN
SEYMOUR CRACBARD
MAXWELL c. GREENBERG
BURTON M. JOSEPH
BURIONS LEVINSON
November 16, 1994
MELVIN SALBERG
Vice-Chaimen
MEYER FISENBERG
THOMAS HUMBURCER
IUDI <RUPP
ALLAN MARCOLIS
LESTER POLLACK
ICEL SPRAYREGEN
The President
Hunny Vire-Chairmen
LEONARD L. ABESS
DOROTHY BINSTOCK
The White House
RUDY BOSCHWITZ
EDGAR M. BRONFMAN
Washington, DC 20500
MAXWELL DANE
MAXFISHER
BRICE HOCHMAN
GERIM. JOSEPH
MAX M. KAMPELMAN
Dear Mr. President:
SAM KANE
PHILIP M. UTZNICK
PHILIP KRUPP
SAMUEL 11 MILLER
We write to convey our concern at your comments yesterday expressing
BERNARD D. MINTZ
Mill TON MOUEN
BERNARD NATH
conditional support for a constitutional amendment on school prayer.
ROBERT K. NATHAN
ANITA PERLMAN
SIDNEY R. YATES
Vice-Char
On numerous occasions in the past, you have spoken eloquently and
National Executive Commission
RARHARA HAISER
passionately about your commitment to what you have described as "perhaps
Hundrary Chairmen
National Evecutive Committee
the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom." You have also
DAVID A. ROSE
RONALD #. SUBEL
articulated an appreciation for the wisdom of our founders, "who well
Treasurer
ROHIRT H TALY
understood what could happen to this country, how both religion and
Assistant treasurer
SYDNEY JARKOW
government could be perverted if there were not some space created and some
Honorary Treasurers
CHARLES COLDRING
protection provided."
MOE KUDLER
Sereary
IRVING SHAPRO
Exactly one year ago today, when you signed the Religious Freedom
President, B'nji 8 rith
Restoration Act into law, you conveyed a vision of the religion clauses of the
KENTE N: HINER
Executive Vice President
First Amendment which we share. On that occasion, you stated: "We are a
- Brith
SIDNEY CLEARFIELD
people of faith [and] we have been so secure in that faith that we have
President
B'nal B'rith Wonten
enshrined in our Constitution protections for people who profess no faith; and
SUSAN BROCK
long Daps for
good for us for doing so. That is what the First Amendment is all about."
Indi B'rith Women
GAIL WOOD
ASSISTANT NATIONAL DIRECTORS
As people of faith rooted in a faith community in the religious minority
Development
STUART TAUBER
in this country, we believe the First Amendment has served us and all
Frogram. international Affairs
KENNETH IAC OBSON
Americans well. We would be deeply troubled by any governmental effort to
modify it in order to intrude religious views or practices into public schools,
DIVER IN DIRECTORS
Civil Rights
where they do not belong. Moral values should be taught in American public
IEFEREY P. SINENSKY
Community Service
schools, but this can be accomplished without any form of organized prayer or
ANN TOURK
Name and Administration
religious activity which will inevitably make some children feel outcast.
BOBBIE ARBESTELD
Interyroup Relations
CHARNEY V. ROMBERC
We know that the American people will understand that opposition to a
leadership
Assistant to the National Director
MARK D. MEDIN
school prayer amendment does not reflect hostility to religion. but rather a deep
Marketing and Communic stions
and abiding conviction that religion is too important and too precious to permit
MARK A. FDF MAN
Washington Kepresentative
any form of state intervention. However, we are concerned that a proposed
RSS N ORDES
General (nuncl
ARNOLD FORSTER
And late Central Counsel
JUSTIN 1. FINGER
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 823 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 (212) 490-2525 FAX: (212) 867-0779
The President
November 16, 1994
Page 2
constitutional prayer amendment will have appeal to many Americans who do
not understand all of its ramifications, and who may not be aware that children
already have the right to engage in voluntary, individual prayer whenever they
choose.
We urge you to oppose this effort to amend the Bill of Rights, which
has served us so well for over two centuries.
Sincerely,
David H Shanter
David H. Strassler
Abraham H. Foxman
National Chairman
National Director
NOV-17-1994 14:59 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.03
AN OPEN LETTER TO SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS AND SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND PRAYER IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
April 1994
As efforts to reinstate organized prayer in the public
schools proliferate, we write as religious leaders serving
millions of Americans of faith to express our opposition to such
activities, and we do so on the basis of our faith and our belief
in the sanctity of prayer. In many communities, officials have
passed resolutions urging that "prayer be returned to the public
school systems of this nation." Elsewhere, "legal SWAT teams"
have been dispatched to public school districts to advocate so-
called student-led, organized prayer at public school
graduations, and many school districts have already endorsed,
encouraged and allowed such prayer.
While such actions may have been undertaken in an attempt to
strengthen religion, they will have precisely the opposite
effect. These activities not only weaken the principle of the
separation of church and state that has ensured religious liberty
in our country for over 200 years, they also engender conflict in
our public schools and seriously erode religious freedom in
America.
Both religious leaders and government officials have long
recognized that the separation of church and state is essential
to preserving religious freedom for all. History teaches that
religious freedom and practice have flourished when government
remains neutral toward religion, as in America today. By
contrast, when government seeks to promote religion, as in the
state-sponsored churches of Europe, pews have emptied and the
free exercise of religion has suffered.
Even when the purpose is benign, government involvement in,
or promotion of, religious practice inevitably politicizes
religion and harms religious freedom. If the government were to
sponsor or endorse a particular denomination's religious
practices or prayer, for example, it would place the weight of
the state behind a "preferred" religion, thereby excluding those
with different religious beliefs. And if the government were to
try to make state-sponsored observance "nonsectarian, the result
would be to trivialize and secularize religion, insulting those
who take their faith seriously. As the Supreme Court has
observed, "a union of government and religion tends to destroy
NOV-17-1994 15:00 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244 P.04
As we approach public school graduations this year, we
urge all people of faith to declare a permanent cease fire on
this issue, and work to promote the true cause of religious
liberty, including the separation of church and state. It is
critical to our society and to the fundamental well-being and
liberty of our children that these precepts of religious freedom
be preserved, and that you, as educators, respect these
principles. All of us must make every effort to prevent our
public schools from becoming a battleground over religion and to
promote true religious liberty.
Sincerely,
(Signatories are listed by state. Please note, congregations are listed for identification purposes only.)
Rabbi Dr. Steven Jacobs, Temple B'nai Shalom, (Jewish), Huntsville, AL
Rabbi Jonathan Miller, Temple Emanu-El, (Jewish), Birmingham, AL
Dr. Howard W. Roberts, Auburn First Baptist, (Baptist), Aubum, AL
Dr. G. Todd Wilson, Weatherly Heights Baptist Church, (Baptist). Huntsville, AL
Rev. Doak Mansfield, Unitarian Universalist Church, (Unitarian), Huntsville, AL
Rev. Dr. Roger Lovett, Bapt. Church of the Covenant, (Baptist), Birmingham, AL
Rabbi Eugene Levy, Congregation B'nai Israel, (Jewish). Little Rock. AR
Dr. Layne E. Smith, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, (Baptist), Fayetteville, AR
Rev. Melvin Briere, (Evan. Lutheran Church in Amer.), Sun City, AZ
Bishop Howard Wenes, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Phoenix, AZ
Rev. Michael G. Nickerson, United Methodist, (Methodist), Phoenix, AZ
Rev. Willis F. Erickson, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Tucson, AZ
Rev. L. Alvin Young, Presbyterian Church (USA) (Presbyterian), Phoenix, AZ
Rev. Richard L. Smith, (United Church of Christ), Tucson, AZ
Rabbi David Pinkwasser, (Jewish), Tempe, AZ
Rev. Joseph L. Carucci, ELCA, (Lutheran), Paradise Valley, AZ
Rabbi Maynard Bell, Temple Solel, (Jewish), Scousdale, AZ
Rabbi Stephen J. Einstein, Congregation B'nai Tzedek, (Jewish), Fountain Valley, CA
Rev. Thomas Kilgore, Jr., Progressive National Baptist Convention, (Baptist), Los Angeles, CA
Rev. Sharon Delgado, (United Methodist Church), Santa Cruz, CA
Rabbi Denise L. Eger, Congregation Kol Ami, (Jewish), West Hollywood, CA
Rev. Robert Achzehner, H.W., M., (The Prosperos), Costa Mesa, CA
Rabbi Andrew Straus, (Jewish), Burlingame, CA
Rabbi Donald Goor, Temple Juda, (Jewish), Tarzana, CA
Rabbi Allen I. Freghling, University Synagogue, (Jewish). Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Steven A. Chester, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Oakland, CA
Rabbi John Rosove, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Los Angeles, CA
3
NOV-17-1994 15:01 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.05
Rev. Dr. David J. Jamieson, Northern CA/NV Conference, (UCC), San Francisco, CA
Rev. John Simmons, Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Burbank, CA
Rev. Stanley E. Olson, Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Placerville, CA
Rev. Lloyd Hanson, Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Sacramento, CA
Rabbi Jerald Brown, Temple Ahavat Shalom, (Jewish), Northridge, CA
Rev. Jerald Stinson, (United Church of Christ), Carlsbad, CA
Rabbi Richard Shapiro, (Jewish), Santa Barbara, CA
Rabbi Howard Laibson, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Long Beach, CA
Rev. Anne Lee Kreml. (United Church of Christ), San Francisco, CA
Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Alameda, CA
Rabbi Michael Robinson, Congregation Shomrei Torah, (Jewish), Santa Rose, CA
Rabbi Miriam Biatch. Temple Beth Solomon of the Deaf, (Jewish), Arieta, CA
Rabbi Robert Shapiro, Congregation Beth Israel, (Jewish), San Diego, CA
Rabbi Alan Henkin, Beth Knesset Bamidbar, (Jewish), Lancaster, CA
Rabbi Melanie Aron, Congregation Shir Hadash, (Jewish), Los Gatos, CA
Rabbi Michael Mayersohn, Temple Beth David. (Jewish). Westminster, CA
Rabbi Hillel Cohn, Congregation Emanu-El, (Jewish), San Bernardino, CA
Rev. Christine Tata, Community Congregational Church, (UCC), Tehachapi, CA
Rev. Dr. Peter Sabey, Interfaith Counseling Service, (Presbyterian), Davis, CA
Rev. Fred Register, (United Church of Christ), Alhambra, CA
Rev. Anne Hess, (United Church of Christ), Monteray, CA
Rev. Jerry Stevenson, (United Church of Christ). Bakersfield, CA
Rev. Charles Schepel, (United Church of Christ), Cypress, CA
Rev. no J. Madden, (United Church of Christ), Escondido, CA
Rev. Philip Price, Woodland Hills Community Church, (UCC), Woodland Hills, CA
Rev. Dr. Peggy Betzholtz, First Congregational Church of Christ, (UCC), Eureka, CA
Rev. Kenneth E. Lockwood, The Congregational Church, (UCC), San Luis Obispo, CA
Rev. Gregory G. Garland, (United Church of Christ), Long Beach, CA
Rabbi Bruce Kadden, Temple Beth EL, (Jewish), Salinas, CA
Rev. Betsy B. Bennett, (Episcopalian). Carmel, CA
Rev. James DeLange, ELCA, (Lutheran), San Prancisco, CA
Rev. Harley Pryor, (Presbyterian), Duarte, CA
Rev. H. Paul Schaeffer, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Mendocino, CA
Rev. Richard L Schaper, St. Mark's Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), San Francisco, CA
Rev. Dr. Davida Foy Crabtree, (United Church of Christ), Pasadena, CA
Rev. Father James Adams, St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Cathedral, (Greek Orthodox), Los Angeles, CA
The Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch, Bishop of L.A.-Episc. Church, (Episcopalian), Los Angeles, CA
The Rev. Dr. Marjorie N. Learning, (Unitarian Universalist), Santa Paula, CA
Rev. Albert H. Thelander, (Unitarian Universalist), Aroata, CA
Rabbi Deborah R. Prine, (Jewish), Poway, CA
Rev. C. Harold Rickard, (United Methodist), Golden, CO
Rev. Stuart Haskins, Jr., (United Church of Christ). Littleton, CO
Rev. Clyde Miller, (United Church of Christ), Denver, CO
4
NOV-17-1994 15:02 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.06
Rev. Bruce Inglis, (United Church of Christ), Denver, CO
Father Charles Buswell, (Catholic), Puebio, CO
Rev. Robert G. Hewitt, (Episcopalian). Colorado Springs, CO
Father Dugan McGinley, (Roman Catholic), Littleton, CO
Rev. Charles Archibald, (Humanist Society of Friends), Durango, CO
Prof. Rev. Kenneth E. Morse, Phi Delta Kappa Education Society, (Baptist), Bloomfield, CT
Rabbi Arnold H. Miller, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Waterbury, CT
Rev. Shepard Parsons, (United Church of Christ), New Haven, CT
Rabbi Cory A. Weiss, Congregation Beth Israel, (Jewish), West Hartford, CT
Rabbi James Prosnit, Congregation B'nai Israel, (Jewish), Bridgeport, CT
Rev. Peter Hammond, (United Church of Christ), Comwall, CT
Rev. Margaret Barron, First Congregational United Church of Christ, (UCC), Darien, CT
Rev. Ronald Evans, First Congregational Church of Darien, (UCC), Darien, CT
Rev. Allen Humes, Kensington Congregational United Church of Christ, (UCC), Kensington, CT
Rabbi Howard Sommer, Temple Beth Tikvah, (Jewish), Madison, CT
Rev. Robert C. Lane, (United Church of Christ), Windsor, CT
Rev. Kent Siladi, (United Church of Christ), Guilford, CT
The Rev. Dr. Robert M. Doss, (Unitarian Universalist), Wilmington, DE
Rabbi Peter H. Grumbacher, Beth Emeth, (Jewish), Wilmington, DE
Rev. William P. Zelazny. First Unitarian Church, (Unitarian Universalist), Wilmington, DE
Rabbi David Saperstein, Dir. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, (Jewish) Washington, DC
Rev. James A. Nash, (Methodist), Washington, DC
Rev. Alan A. Geyer, (Methodist), Washington, DC
Rev. Robert W. Tiller, American Baptist Churches USA. (Baptist), Washington, DC
Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, Assoc. Dir. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, (Jewish), Washington, DC
Rev. Jim Hedges, Wesminister Presbyterian Church, (Presbyterian), Washington, DC
Rev. John Buchanan, (Baptist). Washington, DC
Rabbi Mindy Portnoy, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Washington, DC
Rev. Barron B. Maberry, St. Matthew Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Washington, DC
Rev. Dr. John F. Steinbruck, ELCA, (Lutheran). Washington, DC
Rev. L. William Yolton, Presbyterian Church, (USA), Washington, DC
Rev. James Dunn, The Baptist Joint Committee On Public Affairs, (Baptist), Washington, DC
Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, Presbyterian Charch, (USA). (Presbyterian), Washington, DC
Rabbi Kenneth Weiss, Washington Hebrew Congregation, (Jewish), Washington, DC
Rev. Brent Walker, The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, (Baptist), Washington, DC
Rev. John Mack, First Congregational United Church of Christ, (UCC), Washington, DC
Rev. Patricia Conover, (United Church of Christ). Washington, DC
Rev. Tyrone Pitts, Progressive National Baptist Conference, (Baptist), Washington, DC
Rev. Wilbert Miller, Augusta Lutheran Church. (Lutheran). Washington, DC
Rev. Jay Lintner, (United Church of Christ), Washington, DC
Rev. Stan Hastey, The Alliance of Baptists, (Baptist), Washington, DC
Rev. Robert J. Brooks, (Episcopal). Washington, DC
Rabbi Richard Birnholz, Congreg. Schaari Zedek, (Jewish), Tampa, FL
5
NOV-17-1994 15:03 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.07
Rev. J. Robert Nordlander, ELCA, (Lutheran), Sun City Center, FL
Richard Agler, Congregation B'nai Israel, (Jewish), Boca Raton, FL
Rabbi Fred Guttman, Congregation Ahavath Chesed, (Jewish), Jacksonville, FL
Rabbi Ralph Kingsley, Temple Sinai of North Dade, (Jewish). North Miami Beach, FL
Rabbi Gary M. Klein, (Jewish), Palm Harbor, FL
Rabbi Norman Lipson, (Jewish), Hollywood, FL
Rev. Dr. Charles L. Burns, FL Conference of United Church of Christ, (UCC), Winter Park. FL
Rev. Paul Norcross, American Baptist Churches/USA. (Baptist), Palm Harbor, FL
Rabbi Samuel Silver, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Delray Beach, FL
Rev. Charies W. Bare, (Disciples of Christ), Miami, FL
The Rev. Terrell T. Kirk, (Episcopalian), Dunedin, FL
Rev. Jane Goodman, Unity Church of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL
Rev. Dr. Charles Burns, Florida Conference, (UCC), Winter Park, FL
Rabbi Larry Halpern, (Jewish), Orlando, FL
Rabbi William Cohen, (Jewish), Orlando, FL
Rev. Carl Herman Voss, (United Church of Christ). Jacksonville, FL
Rabbi Barry Priedman, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Merritt Island, FL
Rabbi Howard R. Greenstein, Congregation Abavat Chesed, (Jewish), Jacksonville, FL
Rabbi Merie Singer, Temple Beth-El of Boca Raton, (Jewish), Boca Raton, FL
Rev. David Charles Smith, Faith United Church of Christ, (UCC), Clearwater, FL
Rev. Allan T. Dodge, (United Methodist). Bradenton, FL
Rev. Lawrence Reimer, (United Church of Christ), Gainesville, FL
Rev. Allen Hollis, Union Congregational Church of Christ, (UCC), West Palm Beach, FL
Rev. Henry Strube, (Baptist), Ft Lauderdale, FL
Rev. Howard S. Olson, E. Lutheran Church of America (Lutheran), Tampa, FL
The Rev. Robert Reister, (Episcopal), Palm Harbor, FL
Rev. Conrad A. Braaten, ELCA, (Lutheran), Boynton Beach. FL
Rev. Clarence V. Caldwell, (Lutheran), Boca Raion, FL
Rev. Dr. Melvin E. Schoonover, American Baptist, (Baptist), Miami, FL
Rabbi Mark Zimmerman, Congregation Beth Shalom, (Jewish). Atlanta, GA
Rev. Andrew J. Young, (United Church of Christ), Atlanta, GA
Rabbi Jordan M. Parr. Congregation Children of Israel. (Jewish), Augusta, GA
Rev. Paul Hanna, (Methodist), Gainsville, GA
Rabbi Stanley Davids, Temple Emanu-El, (Jewish), Atlanta, GA
Rev. Roger Knight, (United Church of Christ), Roswell, GA
Rabbi Vri Gorea, (Jewish), Macon, GA
Rev. Dr. Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Sem., (UCC), Decatur, GA
Rev. Tim Shirley, Virginia Highlands Baptist Church, (Baptist), Atlanta, GA
Rev. Lanny Peters, Oakhurst Baptist Church, (Baptist). Decatur. GA
Dr. James C. Strickland, Jr., Heritage Baptist Church, (Baptist), Cartersville, GA
Rabbi Jeffrey R. Portman, Ayudas Action Congregation, (Jewish), Iowa City, IA
Rev. Russell Fate, (Congregational-UCC), Iowa City, LA
Rev. Robert Williams, (United Church of Christ), McGregor, LA
6
NOV-17-1994 15:04 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244 P.08
Rabbi Steven M. Fink, (Jewish), Des Moines, IA
Rev. Roger F. Miller, (Disciples of Christ), Muscatine, IA
Rev. Charles Briem, (United Church of Christ), Des Moines, IA
Rabbi Ellen Dreyfus, (Jewish), Homewood, IL
Rev. Leslie E. Wilson, (Episcopal), Believille, IL
Rev. Jane E. Knowles, (United Church of Christ), Byron, IL
Rev. Dwight E. Borden, (United Church of Christ), Byron, IL
Bishop Robert J. Marshall, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Chicago, IL
Bishop Herbert Chilstrom, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Chicago, IL
Rev. Dr. Donald E. Miller, (Church of the Bretheran), Elgin, IL
Bishop Robert L. Isakson, (Evangelical Lutheran Church), Worcester, MA
Bishop Howard E. Wennes, (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Grand Canyon Synod), Phoenix, AZ
Reverend Howard S. Olsen, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Sun City Center, FL
Rabbi Brad Bloom, Sinad Temple, (Jewish), Champaign, IL
Rabbi David M. Sofgian, Congregation Emanuel, (Jewish), Chicago, IL
Rabbi Elliott Kleinman, Temple Sholom, (Jewish), Chicago, IL
Dr. John Binder, North American Baptist Conference, (Baptist), Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Dr. Charles Weber, North American Baptist Conference, (Baptist), Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Rev. Gregory Skiba, (United Church of Christ). Hinsdale, IL
Rev. Sarah S. Edwards, (United Church of Christ), Hinsdale, IL
Rev. Dr. Richard E. Nye, (United Church of Christ), Hinsdale, IL
Rabbi Amy Memis, Congregation BJBE, (Jewish). Glenview, IL
Rabbi Dov Taylor, Congregation Solel, (Jewish), Highland Park, IL
Rabbi Marc Berkson, Temple Judea Miapah, (Jewish), Skokie, IL
Rev. J. Robert Linn, (United Church of Christ), Waukegan, IL
Rev. Richard Wolf, (United Church of Christ), Elmhurst, IL
Rev. Garry Oniki, (United Church of Christ), Bensenville, IL
Rev. David Sickelka, (United Church of Christ), Highland, IL
Rev. Fred Traut, (United Church of Christ), Chicago, IL
Rev. Rebecca Anne Johnston, (United Church of Christ), Sheffield, IL
Rabbi Gary S. Gerson, Oak Park Temple B'nai Abraham Zion, (Jewish), Oak Park, IL
Rev. Clara Thompson, (Baptist). Montgomery, IL
Rev. Wolfgang Roth, Garrett-Evangelical Seminary, (United Methodist), Evanston, IL
Rabbi David Sofian, Congregation Emanuel, (Jewish), Chicago. IL
Rev. J. Robert Zinn, (United Church of Christ). Waukegan, IL
Rev. Eric S. Dale, (Disciples of Christ), Crystal Lake, IL
Rev. Edgar Peara, (Unitarian Universalist), Park Forest, IL
Father Dr. John T. Paulikowski, Catholic Theological Union, (Catholic), Chicago, IL
Sr. Marge Boyle. Sisters of Zion, R. Catholics, (Catholic), Chicago, IL
Dr. Kenneth B. Smith, Chicago Theol. Sem., (UCC), Chicago, IL
The Rev. Dr. David Stanford, (Episcopal), Chicago, IL
Rabbi John G. Spiro. Moses Montefiore Temple, (Jewish), Bloomington, IL
Dr. Dwight Jessup, Baptist Joint Committee of the Baptist General Conference, (Baptist), Upland, IN
7
NOV-17-1994 15:05 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.09
Rabbi Morley T. Feinstein, (Jewish). South Bend, IN
Rev. James L. Ray, (United Methodist), Franklin, IN
Rabbi Stanley Halpern, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Gary, IN
Rabbi Laurence Milder, Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, (Jewish), Indianapolis, IN
Rev. John Morehouse, (Unitarian Universalist), South Bend, IN
Rev. Tom Tucker, (United Church of Christ), Evansville. IN
Rev. George Philip Hoy, (United Church of Christ), Evansville, IN
Rabbi Arthur J. Abrams, Temple Adoth B'nai Israel, (Jewish), Evansville, IN
Rev. Gordon D. Gibson, (Unitarian Universalist). Elkhart, IN
Rabbi E Mark H. Levin, (Jewish), Prairie Village, KS
Rev. Robert Kasper, (United Church of Christ), Tonganoxie, KS
Rabbi Kenneth A. Emert, Temple Emanu-El, (Jewish). Wichita, KS
Rev. John Krueger, (United Church of Christ), Wichita, KS
Father H. Paul Osborne, (Episcopal), Garrison, KY
Rev. James E. Andrews, (Presbyterian Church USA), Louisville, KY
Rev. James Holloday, Jr., (Southern Baptist), Louisville, KY
Dr. John Dunaway, (Baptist), Corbin, KY
Dr. Frances H. Fite. Louisville Presby. Theol. Sem., (Presbyterian). Louisville, KY
Dr. Sarah Frances Anders, Baptist Joint Committee, (Baptist), Pineville, LA
Rabbi David Kline, B'nai Israel, (Jewish), Monroe, LA
Rev. William P. Richardson, (Episcopalian), New Orleans, LA
Dr. Roger W. Sullivan, (Baptist), Leesville, LA
Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, (Methodist), Washington, D.C.
Rev. Nancy H. McCarthy, (Episcopalian). Boca Raton. LA
Rev. Clayton Reed, (United Church of Christ), Bass Harbor, ME
Rev. Marshall Hughes, (United Church of Christ), Bar Harbor, ME
Rev. William Bigelow, (United Church of Christ). Northeast Harbor, ME
Rev. Robert Hotelling, (United Church of Christ), East Wilton, ME
Rev. J. Mark Worth, (Unitarian Universalist), Ellsworth, ME
Rabbi Reuben Levine, (Jewish), Gaithersburg, MD
Rev. David Jordan, Twinbrook Baptist Church, (Baptist), Rockville, MD
Rev. John Ewing Roberts, (Baptist), Baltimore, MD
Rev. Jerry L. Martin, Kensington Baptist Church, (Southern Baptist). Kensington, MD
Rev. Michael Simmons, St. Paul's United Church of Christ, (UCC). Westminster, MD
Dr. David Albert Farmer, (Baptist), Baltimore, MD.
Rev. Alfred Christenson, ELCA, (Lutheran). Columbia, MD
Rev. John R. Houck, ELCA, (Lutheran), Baltimore, MD
Rev. Dan Ivins, First Baptist Church, (Baptist). Silver Spring, MD
Rabbi Gustav Buchdahl, Temple Emanuel, (Jewish). Baltimore, MD
Ms. Mary Hunt, Women's All for Thigy., Eth., & Rit, (Catholic), Silver Spring, MD
Rabbi Floyd L. Herman, (Jewish), Baltimore, MD
Rabbi Mark 3. Panoff, Temple Isaiah, (Jewish), Columbia, MD
Rev. John R. Deckenback, (United Church of Christ), Baltimore, MD
8
NOV-17-1994 15:06 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.10
Dr. and Mrs. Bernard and Malvine Sobin, (Jewish). Silver Spring, MD
Rev. Julian Hall. (United Church of Christ), Westminster, MD
Rev. Paul Vali, (United Church of Christ), Riverdale, MD
Rev. Winslow Shaw, (Presbyterian), Annapolis, MD
Bishop George Paul Mocko, DE-MD Synod, Evang. Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Baltimore, MD
Rev. W. Lamar Wadsworth, Woolford Memorial Bapt. Chur., (Baptist), Baltimore, MD
Rev. Charles Moline, ELCA, (Lutheran), Easton, MA
Bishop Robert L. Isaksen, ELCA, (Lutheran), Worcester, MA
The Rev. Robert L. Livingston, (United Church of Christ), Amberst, MA
Rev. Dr. William I. Schulz, (Unitarian Universalist). Maynard, MA
Rev. Howard Andrews, (United Church of Christ), Sterling, MA
Rev. P.T. Calvin Johnson, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Marstons Mills, MA
Rev. Gordon S. Nelson, E. Lutheran Church of America, (Lutheran), Marstons Mills, MA
Rabbi Elias Lieberman, Falmouth Jewish Congregation, (Jewish), East Falmouth, MA
Rabbi Neil Kominsky, Temple Beth David of the South Shore, (Jewish), Brookline, MA
Rabbi Dennis Ross, (Jewish), Pittsfield, MA
Rev. Charles Bergstrom. ELCA. (Lutheran), West Yarmouth, MA
Rabbi Harold Robinson, Cape Cod Synagogue, (Jewish). Hyannis, MA
Rev. Luther Pierce, (United Church of Christ), Cummington, MA
Rev. Denise Esslinger, (United Church of Christ), Cambridge, MA
Rabbi Arthur Nemitoff, Temple Ohabei Shalom, (Jewish). Brookline, MA
Rev. Kathryn Stevens, (United Church of Christ), Dorchester, MA
Rev. Robert Gardiner, (United Church of Christ). Southampton, MA
Rev. David Miller, (Unitarian Universalist), Holden, MA
Dr. K. Joseph Short, (Disciples of Christ), Bradford, MA
Rev. John A. Buehrens, (Unitarian Universalist). Boston, MA
Rabbi Mark Dov Shapiro, Sinai Temple, (Jewish), Springfield, MA
Bishop Herbert Skeete, United Methodist Church, (Methodist), Boston, MA
Rev. Bennie E. Whiten, Jr., MA's Conference. (UCC). Framingham, MA
The Rev. Charles Homeyer, (Episcopal), Ada, MI
Rev. Robert Snyder, West Adrian United Church of Christ, (UCC), Adrian, MI
Rabbi Paul Yedwab, Temple Israel, (Jewish), West Bloomfield, MI
Rabbi Norman T. Roman, CCAR, (Jewish), West Bloomfield, MI
Rev. Dr. James R. Lyons, The Ecumenical Institute, (Congregational), Southfield, MI
Rabbi Julian I. Cook, (Jewish), Bloomfield Hills, MI
Rabbi Amy Bigman, Temple Emanu-El, (Jewish). Oak Park, MI
Rabbi Daniel F. Polish, Temple Beth El, (Jewish), Bloomfield Hills, MI
Rev. Richard Rowlands, (United Church of Christ). Lowell, MI
Rev. Robert Kittendorf, (United Church of Christ). Grand Rapids, MI
Rev. Tom Brown II, (United Methodist), Burton, MI
Rev. Jeffrey B. Hildebrand, (United Methodist). Detroit, MI
The RL Rev. Bishop R. Stewart Wood, Jr., Episcopal Diocese of Michigan, (Episcopalian), Detroit, MI
The Rt. Rev. Bishop John H. Burt, (Episcopalian), Marquette, MI
9
NOV-17-1994 15:07 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244 P.11
Rabbi Norman Cohen, Bet Shalom Congregation, (Jewish), Hopkins, MN
Rev. James H. Bell, (Presbyterian U.S.A.). St. Paul, MN
Rev. J. Samuel Shelby, (United Church of Christ), Appleton, MN
Rev. Shirley Harper Cox, First Congregational Church, (UCC), Glencoe, MN
Rev. Margaret Strodtz, (Presbyterian), Arden Hills, MN
Rabbi Martin S. Scharf, (Jewish), Duluth, MN
Rabbi Martin Zinkow, (Jewish), St. Paul, MN
Rev. Glen Herrington-Hall, (United Church of Christ). St. Paul, MN
Rev. David McMahill, (United Church of Christ), Northfield, MN
Rabbi Max A. Shapiro, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Minneapolis, MN
Rev. Howard B. Johnson, United Methodist Church, (Methodist). Minneapolis, MN
Rev. David Southcomb, (Presbyterian). Canton, MS
Rabbi Steven W. Engel, Beth Israel Congregation, (Jewish), Jackson, MS
Rabbi Susan Talve, Central Reform Congregation, (Jewish), St. Louis, MS
Rabbi Judith Bluestein, B'nai Israel Congregation, (Jewish), Hattiesburg, MS
Rev. Dr. Roger A. Paynter, NorthMinster Baptist Church, (Baptist), Jackson, MS
Rev. Dr. Lee Berg, First Baptist Church, (Baptist). Meridan, MS
Rabbi Joshua S. Taub, Temple B'nai Jehudah, UAHC, (Jewish), Kansas City, MO
Rev. Dr. Jack A. Batten, (United Church of Christ), Manchester, MO
Rabbi Jerome W. Grollman, United Hebrew Temple. (Jewish), St. Louis, MO
Rabbi Charles Rabinowitz, Congregation B'nai Abraham, (Jewish), Hagerstown, MO
Dr. J. Daniel Day, First Baptist Church, (Baptist), Columbia, MO
Rev. Anton K. Jacobs, (United Church of Christ). Liberty, MO
Dr. Paul D. Duke, Kirkwood Baptist Church, (Baptist), St. Louis, MO
Rev. Dr. John Schaeffer, (United Church of Christ), Billings, MT
Rev. Nye O. Bond, United Methodist, (Methodist). Lincoln, NE
Rev. Donald E. Griffith, ELCA, (Lutheran), Lincoln, NE
Rev. Dale C. Holt, ELCA. (Lutheran), Lincoln, NE
Rev. Lauren D. Ekdahl, Trinity United Methodist Church, (Methodist), Lincoln, NE
Rabbi Myer Kripke, (Jewish), Omaha, NE
Rev. Lawerence E. Doerr, Presbyterian Church of USA. (Presbyterian), Lincoln, NE
Rev. Benjamin CL. Crosby, NH Conf., (United Church of Christ), Concord, NH
Rev. Edward B. Grevatt, (United Church of Christ), Gilford, NH
Rev. T. Guthrie Speers, Jr., First Presbyterian Church, (Presbyterian), Center Sandwich, NH
Rabbi Gary A. Mazo, Congregation Mikir Shalom, (Jewish), Cherry Hill, NJ
Rabbi Joshua Goldstein, (Jewish), Springfield, NJ
Rabbi Philip Berkowitz, (Jewish), Wash Tap. NJ
Rabbi Carla Freedman, Temple Beth Israel, (Jewish). Plattsbourgh, NJ
Rabbi Daniel M. Cohen, Temple Sharey Tefilo-Israel, (Jewish), South Orange, NJ
Rabbi Howard L. Jaffe. (Jewish). Warren, NJ
Rabbi Eric S. Gurvis, Temple Emeth, (Jewish), Teaneck, NJ
Rabbi Laurence Groffman, (Jewish), Short Mills, NJ
Rabbi Charles Kroloff, Temple Emanu-El, (Jewish), Westfield, NJ
10
NOV-17-1994 15:08 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.12
Rabbi Sally Priesand, Monmouth Reform Temple, (Jewish), Tinton Falls, NJ
Rabbi Stanley Yedwab, Temple Beth Am, (Jewish), Lakewood, NJ
Rev. Robert Moore, East Brunswick Congregational Church. (Congregational). Princeton, NJ
Rev. Horace Hunt, (Baptist), Livingston, NJ
Rev. Elizabeth Thompson, (United Church of Christ), Haworth, NJ
Rev. Samuel Appel, (Presbyterian). Mt. Laurel, NJ
Rev. Kathleen J. Rusnak, ELCA, (Lutheran), Jersey City, NJ
Rev. Edward D. Harper, Bethany Baptist Church, (Baptist), Newark, NJ
Ms. Dorothy M. Noble. Felician College- Rel. Studies, (Catholic), Lodi, NJ
Rabbi Bruce K. Cole, (Jewish), Newark, NJ
Rev. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, (Episcopalian), Hewitt, NJ
Rabbi Cyril Stanway. (Jewish), Las Cruces, NM
Rabbi Paul J. Citrin, (Jewish), Albuquerque, NM
Rev. Brian C. Taylor, (Episcopalian), Albuquerque, NM
Rabbi Steven L. Mills, Congregation Albert, (Jewish). Albuquerque, NM
Rev. Pierre Gallardo, (Unity Church), Silver City, NM
Rabbi Gershon Schwartz, South Baldwin Jewish Center, (Jewish), Baldwin, NY
Rabbi Joseph Greenstein. (Jewish). Brooklyn. NY
Rabbi Charles D. Lippman, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rev. Carolyn J. Strack, United Methodist Church of Richmond Hill, (Methodist), Richmond Hill, NY
Rabbi Arturo Kalfus, Congregation Beth Emeth, (Jewish), Albany, NY
Rabbi Helene Ferris, Temple Israel of N. Westchester, (Jewish). Croton-on-Hudson, NY
Rabbi Barry L. Schwartz, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Amherst, NY
Rev. William H. Carey, (Pentecostal), Schenectady, NY
Rabbi Hishel Jaffe, Temple Beth Jacob, (Jewish), Newborgh, NY
Rabbi Peter J. Rubinstein, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rabbi Brooks R. Susman, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Lawrence, NY
Rabbi Sue Ann Wasserman, Brooklyn Heights Synagogue, (Jewish), Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi David E. Fass, Temple Beth Sholom, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rev. George W. Webber, (United Church of Christ), New York, NY
Rabbi Daryl P. Crystal, North Shore Synagogue, (Jewish), Syosset, NY
Rabbi Aaron Panken, Congregation Rodeph Sholom, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rev. Dr. Judith E. Hjorth, (United Church of Christ), Syracuse, NY
Rabbi Joshua Aaronson, Temple Beth Zion, (Jewish), Buffalo, NY
Rabbi George Stern, Temple Beth Torah, (Jewish), Upper Nyack, NY
Rabbi David Katz, Temple Israel, (Jewish). New York, NY
Rev. Dr. G. Eric Pace, Universal Science of Mind, New York, NY
Rabbi Martin Rozenberg, (Jewish), Port Washington, NY
Rabbi Nathan Landman, (Jewish), Larchmont, NY
Rabbi Steven Rosman, Jewish Family Congregation, (Jewish), South Salem, NY
Rabbi Henry Bamberger, (Jewish), Utica, NY
Rabbi Jeffrey Hoffman, Congregation Sons of Israel, (Jewish), Upper Nyack, NY
The Rev. Dr. William Briggs, NY Conference of United Church of Christ, (UCC), Syracuse, NY
11
NOV-17-1994 15:09 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.13
Rev. J. William Hawk, (United Church of Christ), Canandaigua, NY
Rev. Dr. Wesley Nielson, (United Church of Christ), Calverton, NY
Rev. Thomas Danncy, (Reformed Church in America), Nyack, NY
Rev. John Ekman, New England Congregational Church, (Presbyterian), Saratoga Springs, NY
Rev. Robert Barmades, (United Church of Christ). Rochester, NY
Rev. Brian Krause, (United Church of Christ), Honeoye, NY
Rev. Russell Newbeat, (Episcopalian), Buffalo, NY
Rev. Lee Sullivan, (Presbyterian), Hartsdale, NY
Rabbi Margaret Moers Wenig, Temple Beth Am, The People's Temple, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rev. John Hati. Presbetery of Northern N.Y., (Presbyterian), Elizabethtown, NY
Rev. Dr. Merrill Cadwell, (Disciples of Christ), East Aurora, NY
Rabbi Adam D. Fischer, Temple Isaiah, (Jewish), Stony Brook, NY
Rev. Patricia Reeberg, Exec. Dir., The Council of Churches of the City of NY, New York, NY
Rabbi Stephen A. Klein, (Jewish), Scaradale, NY
Rev. Canon Herbert Arrunategui, The Episcopal Church, (Episcopalian), New York, NY
Rev. Jeanne Audrey Powers, United Methodist, (Methodist), New York, NY
Rev. Carl E. Flemister, American Baptist Churches, USA, (Baptist). Carmel. NY
Rabbi Lori Forman, The Amer. Jewish Committee, (Jewish), New York, NY
Rev. Donald C. Armstrong, (United Church of Christ), Buffalo, NY
Mr. Karl Berolzheimer, The National Conference of Christians & Jews, (Jewish), New York, NY
Mr. Herman Harmelink III, (Reformed Church in America), Poughkeepsie, NY
Rev. Richard B. Martin, Presbyterian Church USA, (Presbyterian), Larchmont, NY
Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, The Amer. Jewish Committee, (Jewish), New York, NY
Bishop Vsevolod, (Ukrainian Ortho. Chruch of Amer.), Jamaica, NY
Rev. Donald W. Shriver, Jr., Presbyterian Church USA, (Presbyterian), New York, NY
Rabbi A. James Rudin, The American Jewish Committee, (Jewish). New York, NY
Rev. Dr. Eileen W. Lindner, Nat'l Council of Churches of Christ, New York, NY
Rabbi Jay S. Lapidus. (Jewish). Massapequa, NY
Rev. Dr. James Melvin Washington, Union Theo. Sem.- Amer. Bapt, (Baptist), New York, NY
Rev. Canon William A. Johnson, Cathdr'l Chrh of St. John the Divine, (Episcopalian), New York, NY
Rev. Fr. George G. Passins, (Eastern Greek Orthodox), Flushing, NY
Rabbi Steven S. Mason, Temple Beth Am, (Jewish), Williamsville, NY
Rev. Doug Reisner, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Charlotte, (Unitarian Universalist) Charlotte, NC
Rev. C. Earl Leininger, (Baptist), Weaverville, NC
Rabbi Lucy H.F. Dinner, Temple Beth Or, (Jewish), Raleigh, NC
Rev. S. David Knisley, (Episcopalian), Weaverville, NC
Dr. Gerald L. Niece, (Presbyterian). Rocky Mount, NC
Rev. Allen Laymon, (Baptist), Charlotte, NC
Rabbi Robert Ratner, Congregation Beth HaTephila, (Jewish), Asheville, NC
Rabbi John Friedman, (Jewish). Durham. NC
Dr. Robert E. Albritton, Millbrook Baptist Church, (Baptist), Raleigh, NC
Rev. Lamar Clements, (United Church of Christ), Morehead City, NC
Rev. T. Melvin Williams, Jr., Watts Street Baptist Church, (Baptist), Durham, NC
12
NOV-17-1994 15:10 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244 P.14
Dr. Carole Chase, (Presbyterian), Elon College, NC
Rev. Dr. Jean Rodenbough, (Presbyterian), Madison, NC
Rev. W.W. Finiator, (Baptist), Raleigh, NC
Rev. Collins Kilburn, N.C. Council of Churches, (UCC), Raleigh, NC
Rev. J. George Reed, (Baptist), Cary, NC
Rev. Lloyd Pendergraft, (United Church of Christ), Mt. Pleasant, NC
Rev. Dr. J. William Angell, (Baptist), Winston-Salem, NC
Rev. Dr. Jack J. Seville, Jr., United Church of Christ of ND, (UCC), Bismarck, ND
Rev. Ervin Overlund, ELCA, (Lutheran), Devils Lake, ND
Rev. Elinor Artman, (Unitarian Universalist). Cincinnati, OH
The Rev. Priscilla Murdock, (Unitarian Universalist). Cincinnati, OH
Rev. Robert Walcott, (Episcopalian), North Canton, OH
Dr. Rev Harry F. Baker, United Methodist Church, (Methodist). Columbus, OH
Rabbi P. Irving Bloom, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Dayton, OH
Rabbi Howard Apothakey, (Jewish), Columbus, OH
Rev. Betry L. Pingel, (Unitarian Universalist), Akron, OH
Rabbi Rosette Haim, The Temple . Tifereth Israel, (Jewish), Beachwood, OH
Rabbi David J. Gelfand, Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, (Jewish), Beachwood, OH
Dr. Bill Johnson Ed.D, (United Church of Christ), Cleveland, OH
Rabbi Susan Stone, (Jewish), So. Euclid, OH
Rabbi Daniel Roberts, Temple Emanu EL, (Jewish), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Verlyn L. Barker, (United Church of Christ). Cleveland, OH
Pastor Daniel W. Bochers, (Evan. Lutheran Church in Amer.), Sandusky, OH
Rabbi Mark Goldman, Rockdale Temple/K.K. Bene Israel, (Jewish), Cincinnati, OH
Rabbi David Horowitz, Temple Israel, (Jewish), Akron, OH
Rabbi Gerry Walter, Temple Shalom, (Jewish), Cincinnati, OH
Rev. John Bertsch, (United Church of Christ). Hartville, OH
Rev. Bernice Buehler, (United Church of Christ), Dover, OH
Rev. Daniel Geslin, (Liberation United Church of Christ). Cleveland. OH
Rev. James S. Yost, Euclid Avenue Christian Church, Cleveland Heights, OH
Rev. Pr. Kenneth R. Irvin, Free Catholic Church International, (Catholic), Steubenville, OH
Rev. Rick Nutt, Muskingum College, (Presbyterian), New Concord, OH
Rev. Maria Porrata, (United Church of Christ), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Terry Provance, (United Church of Christ), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Craig Schaub, Pilgrim Congregational, (UCC), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Mary Sue Gast, (United Church of Christ), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Robert Strommen, Western Reserve Assc. of the United Church of Christ, (UCC), Lakewood. OH
Rev. Dr. Robert Polk, (United Church of Christ), Cleveland, OH
Rev. Mr. Lynn Garth, United Methodist Clergy, (Methodist), Doylestown, OH
Rev. Paul Peters, (United Church of Christ). Avon Lake, OH
Rev. Alex Elias Dandar, (United Church of Christ), Tiffin, OH
Rev. Glenn J. Royer, (United Church of Christ). Clinton, OH
Rev. Dale Hempen, (United Church of Christ), Canton, OH
13
NOV-17-1994 15:11 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.15
Ms. Doska Ross Jones, Interim Stated Clerk, (Presbyterian), Cleveland Heights, OH
Rabbi Robert B. Barr, Congregation Beth Adam, (Jewish), Cincinnati, OH
Rabbi Gary P. Zola, Hebrew Union College, Institute of Religion, (Jewish), Cincinnari, OH
Rev. Paul H. Sherry, President, (United Church of Christ). Cleveland, OH
Rev. William V. Johnson, Northwest Baptist Church, (Southern Baptist), Ardmore, OK
Rev. William W. Dew, Jr., (United Methodist). Portland, OR
Rabbi Emanuel Rose, Temple Beth Israel, (Jewish), Portland, OR
Rev. Denise Andersen, Clackamas Christian, (United Church of Christ), Milwaukie, OR
Rev. Nestor O. Perala, Queen of Heaven Gnostic Church, Portland, OR
Rev. Eugene Ross, (United Church of Christ), Portland, OR
Rev. James M. Crothers, (Presbyterian U.S.A.), East Berlin, PA
Rev. James Shelton, ELCA, (Lutheran), Newtown Sq., PA
Rabbi Joseph Forman, Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel, (Jewish), Elkins Park, PA
Rabbi Robert Leib. Temple Beth Am, (Jewish), Abington, PA
Rabbi Marjorie S. Yudkin, Temple Covenant of Peace, (Jewish), Easton, PA
Rabbi Simeon Maslin, Congregation Keneseth Israel, (Jewish), Elkins Park, PA
The Rev. Dr. Daniel Weiss, Gen. Sec., American Baptist Church/USA, (Baptist), Valley Forge, PA
Rabbi Constance Golden, Old York Road Temple-Beth Am, (Jewish), Abington, PA
Rabbi Martin P. Jr. Beifield, (Jewish), Allentown, PA
Rabbi Jeffrey J. Weisblatt, (Jewish), Harrisburg, PA
Rabbi Michael Joseph, Temple B'nai B'rith, (Jewish), Kingston, PA
Rev. Thomas L. Harwell, Oak Hills Christian Church, Butler, PA
Rabbi Michael Feshbach, Temple Anshe Hesed, (Jewish), Erie, PA
Rabbi Richard Klein, Main Line Reform Temple, (Jewish), Wynnewood, PA
Rabbi Mayer William Solekman, (Jewish), Broomall, PA
Rabbi James Gibson, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Pittsburgh, PA
Rev. Lyle Weible, Penn Central Conference Minister, (UCC). Harrisburg, PA
Rev. Kenneth Trauger, (United Church of Christ), Lancaster, PA
Chaplain Kenneth Burnette, (Baptist), Lancaster, PA
Rev. Aidsand Wright-Riggins, American Baptist Churches, (Baptist), Valley Forge, PA
Rev. Douglas Hodges, (United Church of Christ), Greencastle, PA
Rev. Dr. Robert Jobe, (United Church of Christ), Jeannette, PA
Rev. James Bimey, (Episcopalian), West Chester, PA
Rev. T. Chipman Day, (United Church of Christ), Waynesburg, PA
Rev. Charlotte Hull Whiting, (United Church of Christ), Lancaster, PA
Rev. Joseph N. Carr, Jr., (United Church of Christ), Allentown, PA
Rev. Charles W. Appel, Jr., (Episcopalian), Pittsburg, PA
Rev. John A. Golden, Jr., (Episcopalian). Pittsburgh, PA
Rev. John E. Strausz Clement, (Presbyterian), Pittsburg, PA
Rev. Michael Morrill, American Baptist Churches, (Baptist). Philadelphia, PA
Rev. Norman Hjelm, ELCA, (Lutheran), Wynnewood, PA
Rev. J. Daniel Burke, St. Martin's Church, (Episcopalian), Providence, RI
Rabbi George J. Astrachan, Temple Sinai, (Jewish), Cranston, RI
14
NOV-17-1994 15:12 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244
P.16
Rev. Harry Sterling, (United Church of Christ), W. Warwick. RI
Rev. Raymond Bradley, Jr., Riverside Congregational Church, (UCC), Riverside, RI
Rabbi Leslie Y. Gutterman, Temple Beth-EL, (Jewish), Providence, RI
Rabbi Lawrence Mahrer, Beth Israel Congregation. (Jewish). Florence, SC
Rev. James Gunn, Richland Memorial Hospital, (Methodist), Columbia, SC
Rev. Joseph Alley, (Methodist), Columbia, SC
Rev. James Fields. Plymouth Congregational. (UCC). Charleston, SC
Rabbi Robert Kalin, (Jewish), Brownsville, TN
Rev. Roy J. Schaffer, (Episcopal), Franklin, TN
Rev. Nancy Hastings Schested, Prescott Memorial Baptist Church, (Baptist). Memphis, TN
Rev. David More Maynard, (Unitarian Universalist), Nashville, TN
Rev. Oswald Schrag, (United Church of Christ), Nashville, TN
Rev. John Lackey. (United Church of Christ). Knoxville, TN
Rabbi David E. Stern, (Jewish), Dallas, TX
Rabbi Kenneth Roseman, Temple Shalom, (Jewish), Dallas, TX
Rev. John L. Stanley, (Baptist), Austin, TX
Rabbi Samuel Stahl, Temple Beth-El. (Jewish), San Antonio, TX
Rev. Bill Hornbuckle, Highland Park Baptist Church, (Baptist), Austin, TX
Rabbi Ralph D. Mecklenburger. Beth-El Congregation, (Jewish), Fort Worth, TX
Rabbi Stephen D. Gold, Congregation Beth-El, (Jewish), Tyler, TX
Dr. Charles L. Isbell, Coastal Plains Area of the Christian Church, (Disciples of Christ), Houston, TX
Rev. William D. Hall, (Disciples of Christ). Fort Worth, TX
Rabbi Mathew D. Michaels, Congregation Emanu El, (Jewish), Houston, TX
Rabbi Mark Goldfarb, Temple Mount Sinai, (Jewish), El Paso, TX
Rev. Jim Collie, (Presbyterian), Bedford, TX
Rabbi Barry Block, Temple Beth-El, (Jewish), San Antonio, TX
Rev. Ray Flachmeier, Ascension Lutheran Church, (Lutheran), Garland, TX
Rev. Dr. Norman A. Beck, ELCA, (Lutheran). Seguin, TX
Rev. Dr. George A. Mason, Wilshire Baptist Church-TX, (Baptist), Dallas, TX
Bishop Mark B. Herbener, Northern TX-LA Synod, ELCA, (Lutheran), Dallas, TX
Rev. Dr. Charles Johnson, Second Baptist Church, (Baptist). Lubbock, TX
Rev. Dr. David Randle. (United Church of Christ), Sandy, UT
Rev. David J. Bort, (United Methodist), Arlington, VT
Rev. Donald Goff, (United Church of Christ). Jericho, VT
Dr. Frank E. Eakin, Jr., U. of Richmond- Dept. of Rel., (Episcopalian), Midlothian, VA
Rev. Lawrence E. Matthews, Vienna Baptist Church, (Baptist), Vienna, VA
Rev. Hunsdon Cary, Jr., (Episcopalian), Richmond, VA
Rev. Thomas H. Britton, (United Church of Christ), Virginia Beach, VA
Rev. Robert R. Ward, ELCA, (Lutheran), Salem, VA
Rabbi Mark Golub, (Jewish), Newport News, VA
Rev. Dwayne J. Westermann, ELCA, (Lutheran), Salem, VA
Rev. Thomas G. Fanlkner, Jr., (Episcopalian), Fredricksburg, VA
Rev. Hubert Beckwith, (United Church of Christ), Annandale, VA
15
NOV-17-1994 15:13 FROM BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE
TO
4566244 P.17
Rev. Dr. L. Dean Majette, Ox Hill Baptist Church, (Baptist), Chantilly, VA
Rev. Benjamin Axleroad, (Episcopalian), Arlington, VA
Ms. Ruth McDonough Fitzpatrick, Women's Ordination Conference, (Catholic). Fairfax, VA
Rabbi Howard M. Folb, (Jewish), Winchester, VA
Rev. Woodward D. Morriss, Parish of Shanendoah, (Presbyterian), Raphine, VA
Rabbi Amy R. Perlin, (Jewish), Fairfax Station, VA
Rev. E. Glenn Hinson, (Baptist), Richmond, VA
Rev. Gary Schroeder, ELCA, (Lutheran). Blacksburg, VA
Rev. Roberta Finkelstein, (Unitarian), Arlington, VA
Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, Central Conf. of American Rabbis, (Jewish), Staunton, VA
Rabbi Arnold G. Fink. Beth El Hebrew Congregation, (Jewish), Alexandria, VA
Rev. Marlene Walker, (Unitarian Universalist), Harrisonburg, VA
Rabbi Jonathan Biatch, (Jewish), Staunton, VA
Rabbi Rosalind Gold. (Jewish). Reston, VA
Rabbi Paul F. Cohen, Sholom Temple, (Jewish), Norfolk, VA
Rev. Bruce Edward Wilson, (Southern Baptist), Danville, VA
Rabbi Jonathan E. Kraus, (Jewish). Alexandria, VA
Rabbi Amy Schwartzman, Temple Rodef Shalom, (Jewish), Falls Church, VA
Rev. Hubert G. Locke, (Disciples of Christ), Seaule, WA
Rev. Norman G. Folkers, (Lutheran). Lynnwood, WA
Rev. William E. Jones, United Methodist Elder, (Methodist), Edmonds, WA
Rev. David J. Brown, (United Church of Christ). Wenstchee, WA
Rev. Daniel Schnabel, (United Church of Christ), Yakima, WA
Rev. John Manter, (United Church of Christ), Tacoma, WA
Rev. Dee Eisenhauer, United Church of Christ in University Place, (UCC), Tacoma, WA
Sr. Barbara A. Ferraro, (Roman Catholic). Charleston, WV
Sr. Patricia Hussey, (Roman Catholic), Charleston, WV
Rev. Peter E. Erikson, (Evan. Lutheran Church in Amer.), Webster, WI
Rev. Samuel D. Robbins, (United Church of Christ), Madison, WI
The Rev. Carl R. Simon, (Presbyterian), Milwaukee, WI
Rev. William E. Rishel, First Congregational United Church of Christ, (UCC), Plymouth, WI
16
TOTAL P.17
Trade group and the European Union. In Mahathir's view,
Panetta called the congressional vote scheduled for
the group should not include the United States, Australia
later this month on a new world trade agreement ``the
or New Zealand, as does APEC.
first test of the relationship" between the Democratic
Diplomats said Indonesian President Suharto provided
administration and the new Republican majority in Congress
the momentum necessary to convince doubters like Malaysia
although that majority will not be seated until January.
and China to agree to the communique even though they had
Gingrich and other GOP leaders have generally indicated
reservations about certain aspects of the deal.
that they will support the trade agreement in the lame-duck
"We have set the course and the direction of future
session. But Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., the likely new
economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region in
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, signaled
particular and the world in general," Suharto said.
his intention to delay consideration of the pact.
In a letter to the president, Helms threatened to make
trouble later on foreign policy matters unless Clinton
agrees to put off the trade vote until next year.
Helms' letter said: ``I can assure that it will have an
Clinton Signals Willingness to
exceedingly positive effect on my making certain that the
Agree on School Prayer (Washn)
administration positions on all foreign policy matters during
By Thomas B. Rosenstiel and Melissa Healy=
the 104th Congress will be considered fully and fairly."
Panetta said there are other reforms that the Clinton
(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
administration and the Republican leadership agree on,
WASHINGTON President Clinton signaled Tuesday he
including lobbying reform, campaign finance reform,
might be able to reach agreement with the new Republican
welfare reform, health care reform and the line-item veto.
congressional majority on school prayer.
Referring obliquely to the Helms threat, he added that
``I'll be glad to discuss it with them," the president said at a
foreign affairs is an area where it is ``extremely
news conference at an economic conference in Jakarta,
important" that Congress and the White House work together.
Indonesia. "I want to see what the details (of a school prayer
He also said that he praised Gingrich for his promise
proposal) are. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. It depends on
to cut House committee staffs by one-third and noted that
what it says."
the Clinton administration had cut the White House staff
In Washington, White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta
by 25 percent and the executive branch by some 270,000 jobs.
indicated further agreement with GOP leaders, saying that
But on economic policy, Panetta declared: "As the president
trade and congressional reform are two issues that the two
has made clear the important thing is that (tax cuts) are paid
sides can agree on.
for, and that they not increase the deficit.
Emerging from the first post-election meeting between
"That is a very fundamental discipline that we have
an Administration official and the new Republican
put in place in the budget process here on Capitol Hill
leadership, Panetta rejected proposed Republican tax cuts,
and throughout the government," he said, and if tax cuts
however, saying that they would swell the federal deficit
are not matched with spending cuts, "you are simply
and weaken what has been a strengthening economy.
increasing taxes on our kids for the future."
"I have always supported voluntary prayer in the
In their "Contract with America," House Republicans
schools," Clinton said in Jakarta. "I have always
have promised what they call a middle-class tax cut,
thought that the question was when does voluntary prayer
including a repeal of the so-called ``marriage tax," a
really become coercive to people who have different
tax credit to families making up to $200,000 per year for
religious views from those who are in the majority in any
each child they have, and broader eligibility for
particular classroom.
individual retirement accounts.
"Obviously, I want to reserve judgment, I want to see
Other Republicans, including the probable new chairman
the specifics. And again, I would say this ought to be
of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer,
something that unites the American people, not something
R-Texas, have proposed cutting capital gains taxes.
that divides us. The American people do not want us to
"Whatever we do is going to be paid for by spending
be partisan, but they do want us to proceed in a way that
cuts," Archer said in an interview on "The McNeil/Lehrer
is consistent with their values and that communicates
NewsHour." He suggested that $50 billion could be saved
those values to our children."
over five years in welfare reform alone.
Panetta made an hourlong ``courtesy call" on Newt
"We're going to do a lot in regard to legitimacy and
Gingrich, R-Ga., who is expected to be speaker of the
payments to mothers who have illegitimate children
House in the next Congress, and Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., who
perhaps not all welfare benefits, but a bulk of the
is expected to be Senate majority leader, at Dole's
welfare benefits," he said. "This is tough, but the
Capitol Hill offices.
American people are prepared for us to be tough."
After the session, Panetta said if the Republicans are
serious about balancing the federal budget in five years,
their proposed tax cuts and increased defense spending
would require cutting a trillion dollars from the federal
Most Newcomers to Congress Are
government at the same time.
Political Insiders (Washn)
"Whatever the outcome of the election, we all have a
By Alan C. Miller and Dwight Morris=
responsibility of helping to move this country forward,"
(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
Panetta said. "We have to be very straight with the
WASHINGTON Disenchanted voters might have sent
American people."
congressional titans packing last week, but that hardly means
Neither Dole nor Gingrich commented after the meeting.
they are sending an army of Mr. Smiths to Washington to
Earlier, Alice Rivlin, director of the White House
replace them.
Office of Management and Budget, told reporters at a
To be sure, the 104th Congress that convenes in January
breakfast meeting that the proposed Republican tax cuts,
will feature the least experienced crop of national lawmakers in
if enacted, would swell inflation, ignite interest rates
nearly 40 years: At least 86 first-term legislators will report for
and ``probably throw the economy into recession."
duty to the House, joining most of the 110 newcomers a
The likely new chairman of the House Budget Committee,
post-World War II record elected two years ago.
Rep. John R. Kasich, R-Ohio, accused her of ``alarmist and
But the overwhelming majority of the new arrivals, many of
inflammatory" rhetoric.
whom are Republicans, are not the kind of novice citizen-
legislators portrayed by James Stewart in the Frank Capra
six-year cap sought by many term-limit proponents. The
classic, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." An analysis by the
figure in the Senate which will have added 24 newcomers
Los Angeles Times shows that more than three-quarters of the
in the past two elections will be 11 years and seven
freshman class of '95 either have held public office recently or
months a shorter tenure than the 12-year ceiling sought
were political operatives that is held political party posts or
by many restrictionists.
previously ran for office before being elected. The trend
Even so, those incumbents who decided to seek
continues a pattern begun in 1992.
re-election were still generally successful. In the House,
And unlike the little-known GOP challengers who ousted
the incumbent re-election rate was 88 percent in 1992 and
House Speaker Tom Foley in Washington state and former
90 percent in 1994. The figures in the Senate were 83
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan
percent and 92 percent. This hardly constitutes an
Rostenkowski in Chicago, few newly elected legislators are
anti-incumbent avalanche.
giant-killers. A majority won election in open seats created by
And many of the open seats resulted from circumstances
incumbents' decisions to retire or seek higher office, also
that may not be repeated, at least not until the year
repeating the 1992 pattern.
2002. The once-a-decade redrawing of congressional
"Outsiders don't make it," said Gary Jacobson, a
districts in 1992 placed many incumbents in jeopardy
political science professor at the University of
forcing some to retire rather than face colleagues or
California at San Diego who specializes in Congress. "The
defeat. Some lawmakers were badly tainted by the scandal
candidates who were able to take advantage of the
at the House bank and others stepped aside two years ago
anti-Washington and anti-Democratic sentiments were people
to take advantage of a final opportunity to convert
who themselves were politically active and savvy and
campaign funds to personal use.
seized this as an opportunity to move into Congress."
One example was Republican Robert W. Ney, 40, a
four-term state senator and teacher who won a race to
succeed retiring Democratic Rep. Douglas Applegate in
Ohio. Another was Republican Thomas M. Davis III, a lawyer
5 of Army's Combat Divisions
who ousted one-term Democrat Leslie L. Byrne in
Suffer Decline in Preparedness (Washn)
a highly competitive northern Virginia seat. Davis, 45,
chairs the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.
By Art Pine= (c) 1994, Los Angeles Times=
Only 14 candidates who had not held or sought political
WASHINGTON The Pentagon disclosed Tuesday that five
or party offices were elected to the House in 1992 and 20
of the Army's 12 combat divisions have suffered a significant
in 1994, even though more than 250 such aspirants ran each
decline in military preparedness, primarily as a result of
year. Experienced candidates remain better able to build
cash-flow problems stemming from the deployment of U.S.
formidable political and financial support.
troops to Rwanda, Haiti and Kuwait this past year.
The cadre of incoming lawmakers faces an institutional
In a letter to key lawmakers, Defense Secretary William J.
challenge. Will the Republican-dominated newcomers be in
Perry said the erosion was caused because the Army was
the vanguard of sweeping internal change as promised by
forced to cancel important maintenance operations and training
the new House GOP leadership comparable to that achieved
exercises in order to offset the cost of the overseas operations.
by the 1974 post-Watergate influx? Or will they largely be
The admission was considered likely to be an
co-opted by a system that offers myriad benefits to
embarrassment for the Clinton administration, which has
incumbents, an experience that some say befell the heavily
been denying allegations that military readiness was being
Democratic freshman class of '92?
impaired, while Republicans have been warning that
Even though voters elected mostly politically
preparedness was being hurt.
experienced newcomers, the past two cataclysmic campaigns
Defense Department officials said two of the divisions
have dramatically changed the face of Congress. In
that have been affected were among the rapid deployment
addition to shifting from Democratic to Republican
forces that are the first to go in any combat operation.
majorities, both the House and Senate have significantly
But they said the gap involved shortages in equipment and
increased both the number of women and the number of
personnel and was being quickly eliminated.
minority lawmakers in the '90s.
However, the damage incurred in the other three
The female contingent in the House jumped from 28
including one heavy armor and two infantry divisions, all
before the 1992 election to 47 and is expected to be 49
in so-called ``later-deploying heavy reinforcing" units
next year. The tally in the Senate will have increased
that are among the third tier of Army units that would be
from two to eight. In the House, the black caucus has gone
deployed in a war would require additional funding.
from 25 to 38 members and the Latino caucus from 10 to 18.
Perry said in his letter that the administration would
The Senate added its only black and American Indian in 1992.
seek supplemental appropriations to help bolster the
The anti-Democratic tide did not wash over black and
Army's operations and maintenance budget to offset the
Latino Democratic strongholds this year, largely because
cost of the overseas deployments. He did not say how much
that would entail.
reapportionment created districts that were predominantly
minority and Democratic, or made them even more so. At the
Only a few weeks ago, Deputy Defense Secretary John M.
same time, neighboring districts previously held by
Deutch told Congress in testimony that U.S. troops were
Democrats, which lost key pockets of black voters in 1992,
better prepared than they were before the 1991 Persian
fell to Republicans.
Gulf war, and that readiness was not a serious problem.
The two recent elections have yielded ammunition to
Defense Department officials insisted that Perry's
bolster both the case for, and the case against, the
letter, which was made public in an unusual hastily called
increasingly successful national campaign to limit
late-afternoon briefing, was drafted sometime Monday,
congressional terms. This is an integral part of the new
after the secretary first learned about the apparent
House GOP agenda.
erosion in readiness in the three divisions.
No longer is the Congress primarily the domain of aged
Nevertheless, the briefing came hours after the release
political barons. A full 41 percent of the new House and
of a letter by Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., in line to be
nearly a quarter of the Senate will have served two years
the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
or fewer.
questioning Deutch's assertion that readiness still was
The average tenure for House members will be seven
very high.
years and 10 months less than two years longer than the
Spence and other conservatives have been warning
NOV-16-94 15:09 FROM: PEOPLE FOR THE AM. WAY
ID: 202 293 2672
PAGE 2
DRAFT MEMO RE WHITE HOUSE POSITION RE SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT
As a result of press reports concerning recent statements by
the President on Republican proposals for a school prayer
constitutional amendment, we have received a series of calls
expressing deep concern from close friends of the Administration
in the religious and constitutional rights communities.
Particular concern was voiced because the press reports
signalling possible Presidential willingness to support such an
amendment came at the same time that political and religious
conservatives have begun to raise objections to the proposal. For
example, at a recent private meeting of the groups supporting
RFRA, Forest Montgomery of the National Association of
Evangelicals suggested that he personally had serious
reservations about such an amendment.
For the following reasons, it is recommended that the White
House issue no further statements signalling potential
willingness to support a constitutional amendment on school
prayer, and that further staff work go forward on the issue in
consultation with the religious and other affected communities:
--Religious leaders oppose organized school prayer because
it politicizes and harms religion. When a particular prayer is
approved for a classroom or other school event, it inevitably
puts the government's seal of approval on that prayer and sends a
message of disapproval and exclusion to those with different
religious beliefs. If schools insist on "nonsectarian" prayer,
the result is to secularize and desanctify religion, making it
unacceptable to those who take their faith seriously. Over 600
Baptist, Presbyterian, Jewish, and other religious leaders signed
a letter to school officials this year making precisely this
point. [Do you want a CC of the letter? Signatories include Dunn,
James Andrews, Saperstein, and many others]
--Truly voluntary prayer in schools is already protected by
the First Amendment, RFRA, and other legislation. Individual
students can and do pray, and groups can form prayer and Bible
clubs in most middle and high schools to pray in their own way.
As religious leaders have stated, "voluntary prayer" as used by
Gingrich, etc. is a code word for overturning Supreme Court
decisions on organized prayer, which are crucial to protect
religious liberty.
--Religious leaders are concerned about the inevitable
problem of coercion and offending religious minorities in
"voluntary" organized prayer. The President's statement in
Jakarta recognized this problem. An op-ed several years ago by
AAG Walter Dellinger poignantly described his own experience as
the single Jew in a North Carolina classroom where "voluntary"
prayer took place. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the
deciding vote against graduation prayer in Lee V. Weisman because
of his concern about "subtle coercive pressure" on students.
NOV-16-94 15:10 FROM: PEOPLE FOR THE AM. WAY
ID: 202 293 2672
PAGE 3
--Recent polls and political experience support these
concerns. In a recent Peter Hart poll, although over 65% of the
public generally supports voluntary school prayer, support fell
to less than 35% if the prayers would offend the religious
beliefs of "students who had different religious faiths". Support
dropped to less than 25% if school officials would be involved in
"selecting or approving the prayers to be used." Similarly,
although a Republican challenger tried to use the school prayer
issue against Rep. Pat Williams of Montana, Williams effectively
responded along the lines discussed above and the challenger
failed.
--White House involvement in this issue threatens to be
diverting and damaging politically. Many firm supporters of the
President feel very strongly that no constitutional amendment
whatsoever is appropriate. Gingrich and others, on the other
hand, clearly want to go very far and to overturn prior Court
decisions, and are unlikely to compromise. The result could well
be a political trap for the President on an extremely divisive
issue. Even in the short run, the issue has diverted significant
attention from the President's successful meetings in Jakarta.
--The fact that the proposal is for a constitutional
amendment raises additional concerns. Conservatives as well as
liberals have objected to opening up the fundamental protections
of the Bill of Rights for amendment, as we saw several years ago
on the flag debate. In over 200 years, the Bill of RIghts has
never been amended. And since the President has no vote, veto, or
other formal role in the constitutional amendment process, White
House leverage is limited.
--Prior to the President's statements, a number of
Republicans and conservative religious leaders had begun to
express concern or opposition to the constitutional amendment
proposal. Publicly, these have included, for example, William
Safire, Rep. Morella and the head of the Christian Legal Society.
Privately, there are many more. By suggesting willingness to
consider supporting an amendment, the White House makes it much
more difficult for such opposition to be expressed, particularly
among conservatives.
--After further consultation with religious leaders and work
on the issue, a positive and effective position incorporating the
President's concern about values and religious liberty can be
formulated. Once Gingrich's specific proposal is released, the
religious concerns it raises can be clearly articulated. The
President can support truly voluntary prayer, and can explain how
getting the government involved in and interfering with religious
practice would damage religious liberty. We should also be able
to work with religious leaders and secure broad support from them
for such a position.
From: Jim Castelli Castelli Enterprises, Inc. Fax 703-250-2033 Voice 703-250-3099 To: Melanne Vervear
Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, November 16. 1994 9:53:45 AM
File: C:\WHOUSE\PRAY1116.TXT
20: ALEXIS HERMAN, MELANNE VERVEER
FROM1 JIM CASTELLI
RE: SCHOOL PRAYER
11/16/94
The President's comments on school prayer created confusion; they won't help him with
his critics, they unnerved his friends, and they won't help with Perot voters.
Let me suggest a policy on prayer, values, and schools that is consistent with
administration policy and the President's personal beliefs:
1) Public schools may hold a moment of silence and religious clubs may meet in public
schools on the same basis as other non-curricular clubs. Those are both good things.
So was the President's support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
2) Public schools should teach civic values, character education, and so on.
3) Public schools should teach honestly and openly about the rcle that religion plays
in American and world history, in art, literature, etc.
4) Government, the state, the public schools must never violate the conscience of
students by forcing them to pray against their will. That violates everything the
United States stands for.
Page: 1
nr
n
The Yale
Law Journal
The Sound of Silence: An Epistle on
Prayer and the Constitution
by
Walter Dellinger
95 YALE L.J. 1631
Reprint
Copyright . 1986 by
The Yale Law Journal Co., Inc.
Volume 95
July 1986
Number 8
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95; 1631, 1986
The Sound of Silence: An Epistle on
Prayer and the Constitution*
Walter Dellingert
July 30, 1986
Members of the United States Senate
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator:
A Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Sen-
ate¹ has just crossed my desk. From it I learn that the Committee has, by
a substantial majority vote, favorably reported to the full Senate a bill
proposing a "Voluntary Silent Prayer Amendment" to the Constitution of
the United States. I write to urge you to reject this and similar amend-
ments as they come before you in the future. This particular proposal is,
at one and the same time, both trivial and dangerous. In terms of its os-
tensible objective-to permit a silent time to be set aside during which
pupils may choose to engage in silent prayer-it is simply unnecessary.
There is no present constitutional barrier to the creation by school boards
of such a moment of silence. Its less visible but far more profound effect,
however, may be to permit public officials at every level of government to
promote a religious exercise and to influence, encourage, and persuade
children to engage in a religious activity. This seemingly innocuous
amendment, if proposed by Congress and ratified by the states, would
thus have consequences significantly more damaging to religious liberty
than has yet been acknowledged.
This essay is offered in honor of Charles L. Black, Jr., who has more than once intervened in
the affairs of state with timely letters on behalf of enduring constitutional values. See Black,
Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman, 82 YALE L.J. 189 (1972); Black, The
Marital and Physician Privileges-A Reprint of a Letter to a Congressman, 1975 DUKE L.J. 45;
Black, On Article I, Section 7, Clause 3-and the Amendment of the Constitution, 87 YALE L.J. 896
(1978); Black, Amendment by National Constitutional Convention: A Letter to a Senator, 32 OKLA.
L. REV. 626 (1979).
Professor of Law, Duke University.
1. SENATE COMM. ON JUDICIARY, VOLUNTARY SILENT PRAYER CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND-
MENT, S. REP. No. 165, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985) [hereinafter cited as SENATE P.EPORT].
2. On October 3, 1985, the full Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported S.J. Res. 2, 99th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1985), by a vote of 12 to 6. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 27.
1631
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
I.
The proposed amendment reads as follows:
Article -
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individ-
ual or group silent prayer or reflection in public schools. Neither the
United States nor any State shall require any person to participate
in such prayer or reflection, nor shall they encourage any particular
form of silent prayer or reflection.3
An initial reading of the text of this proposed constitutional amendment
suggests that its effect would be quite minimal. Unlike an earlier amend-
ment proposed by President Reagan,4 which would have permitted gov-
ernment-sponsored, teacher-led group recital of spoken prayer, this
amendment would avoid the spectre of involving bureaucrats and politi-
cians in the composition or selection of prayers. This apparently more
modest Silent Prayer Amendment seems merely to remove some existing
constitutional barrier that precludes school children from engaging in a
school-organized moment of silence in which those who wish to pray si-
lently may do so.
If this were the only effect of this amendment, then it would address a
non-problem. The notion (repeatedly implied but never explicitly stated in
the Senate Report) that Supreme Court decisions forbid schools from or-
ganizing moments of silence is highly dubious at best. If there is no such
existing barrier, then the affirmative case for the amendment virtually
collapses.
Nothing in the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Engle U. Vitale pre-
cludes a school system from establishing a moment of silence. In Engle,
the Court considered a prayer that the defendant school board, acting in
its official capacity under state law, required every principal to cause to be
said aloud by each class at the beginning of each school day. The prayer
had been composed by a group of politically-appointed state officials, the
Board of Regents. Justice Black, writing for the Court, properly focused
3. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 1-2.
4. The President's proposed amendment read: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to
prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be
required by the United States or any State to participate in prayer." Message to the Congress Trans-
mitting Proposed Legislation, 18 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. Doc. 665 (1982). For comments on the
effect of this proposal, see Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Permit Voluntary Prayer, Hear-
ings on S.J. Res. 199 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1982)
[hereinafter cited as 1982 Hearings). and Voluntary School Prayer Constitutional Amendment,
Hearings on S.J. Res. 73 and S.J. Res. 212 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Senate
Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983) [hereinafter cited as 1983 Hearings).
5. 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
1632
The Sound of Silence
upon the state's selection and promotion of the prayer and asserted that
"it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for
any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious pro-
gram carried on by government."
There was no indication in the Court's subsequent decisions concerning
religious activity in the public schools that it is constitutionally impermis-
sible for pupils themselves to choose to pray.⁷ In the two decades since
Engle many legal scholars-including Paul Kauper, Jefferson Fordham,
Paul Freund, Jesse Choper, and Laurence Tribe-have expressed the
opinion that school officials themselves could, without constitutional infir-
mity, provide an organized moment of silence in which students might
choose to pray silently.
When the constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan was
first brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several witnesses,
including Geoffrey Stone, Terrance Sandalow and Norman Redlich, sug-
gested that at least some form of a moment of silence would most likely be
sustained by the Court;' this would permit an opportunity for prayer in
school (though in a form substantially different from the organized group
oral prayer then being proposed by the President).
The substitute Silent Prayer Amendment now before you was later
brought forward. In subsequent hearings, I argued that such an amend-
ment was unnecessary since "a policy that said that there will be a mo-
ment of reflective silence observed at the beginning of each school day,
would clearly pass constitutional muster."10 Even though I erroneously
thought that the Supreme Court might in fact sustain even those silence
6. Id. at 425.
7. Id. School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was but a step away
from Engle. The religious exercises at issue in Schempp were not composed, but rather chosen by,
government officials: The state legislature required daily readings in every school from the Holy
Bible; the school district added the requirement that each class recite the Lord's Prayer in unison.
8. See Kauper, Prayer, Public Schools and the Supreme Court, 61 MICH. L. REV. 1031, 1041
(1963); Fordham, The Implications of the Supreme Court Decisions Dealing with Religious Practices
in the Public Schools, 6 J. CHURCH & STATE 44, 55-56 (1964); Freund, The Legal Issue, in P.
FREUND & R. ULICH, RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 23 (1965); Choper, Religion in the
Public Schools: A Proposed Constitutional Standard, 47 MINN. L. REV. 329, 371 (1963); L. TRIBE,
AMERICAN CONSITTUTIONAL LAW § 14-6, at 829 (1978).
9. See Stone, In Opposition to the School Prayer Amendment, 50 U. CHI. L. REV. 823, 844
(1983) ("It is generally accepted, for example, that a public school may set aside a minute at the
beginning of the school day for 'silent meditation or prayer' without running afoul of the establish-
ment clause."); 1982 Hearings, supra note 4, at 381 (testimony of Terrance Sandalow) (decisions
sustaining moments of silence are "undoubtedly consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in
Engle and Schempp"); id. at 395 (testimony of Norman Redlich) ("there is a reasonably good chance
that [a period of silent meditation or prayer] would be sustained").
10. 1983 Hearings, supra note 4, at 369 (testimony of the author). Paul Bender also expressed
the view that "[i]f [the amendment] means 10 authorize a moment of silence during which the children
may, if they wish, pray or meditate in other ways, then
I think it is unnecessary 10 amend the
Constitution to achieve that result." Id. at 381.
1633
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
statutes that mentioned prayer, I argued that such a statutory mention of
prayer was constitutionally dubious, stating that:
If you add the word "prayer" [to the state statute], or specifically
suggest prayer in the school board policy, as one of the alternatives,
and if one is litmus paper-sensitive to establishment violations, I
think you would have to find there a trace element of establishment-
ism, if the Government is specifically suggesting that one of the
things you might do with your time is utilize it for prayer.11
Not long after the Senate Hearings, the Supreme Court decided Wal-
lace U. Jaffree.¹² Because a majority of the Court appeared to provide a
clear and positive answer to the question of whether a neutral moment-of-
silence statute would be held constitutional,13 I assumed that the Silent
Prayer Amendment to the Constitution would no longer be pursued. I was
surprised to learn that the Judiciary Committee had nonetheless approved
the Silent Prayer Amendment, and I was astonished to read in the Com-
mittee Report the statement that "[i]t is the view of the Committee that
the Jaffree decision effectively prohibits silent prayer in public schools.'
A review of Jaffree demonstrates that this last statement is flatly wrong.
Three separate Alabama statutes were originally challenged in Wallace
U. Jaffree. One provided that teachers could lead all "willing students" in
group oral recital of a specified prayer that was set out in the statute. The
Supreme Court summarily upheld the invalidation of this statute, thus
unanimously reaffirming its original school prayer decision. A second Ala-
bama statute, adopted in 1978, authorized a one-minute period for silent
meditation in all public schools. The district court upheld this statute, and
the plaintiffs did not challenge it on appeal. The third Alabama statute,
adopted in 1981, differed from the preexisting moment-of-silence statute
in that it added the words "or voluntary prayer." It was this statute that
the Court considered and invalidated in Jaffree.¹⁸
Justice Stevens noted in his Opinion of the Court that the unchallenged
1978 statute fully accomplished the goal of setting aside a moment of si-
lence in which students who chose to pray could do so. Thus the only
thing the 1981 silent prayer statute at issue in Jaffree added to the earlier
moment of silence law was "the State's endorsement and promotion of
11. Id. at 369-70.
12. 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985).
13. Id. at 2491. I am using the phrases "neutral moment of silence" and "pure moment of si-
lence" to refer to those statutes that simply establish a silent moment without specifying that the
moment is "for prayer" or "for prayer or contemplation" of "for prayer or meditations."
14. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 36.
15. This statutory history is discussed in Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. at 2481-82.
The Sound of Silence
religion and a particular religious practice."16 Justice Stevens' opinion,
joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell, suggests
that it is a permissible purpose for a state to adopt legislation "protecting
every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate
moment of silence during the school day"""-a right that the Court said
was protected by the earlier, neutral moment-of-silence statute. Such a
purpose was, in the Court's view, "quite different from" the "legislative
intent to return prayer to the public schools."1 The thrust of Justice Ste-
vens' opinion for the Court—that the flaw in the statute before the Court
was the state's explicit endorsement of "prayer" as an officially approved
use of a moment of silence-appears to be fully consistent with the idea
that a statute like Alabama's earlier, neutral "moment of silence" law is
constitutionally permissible.
The implication that the Court would sustain the adoption by states of
neutral moment-of-silence statutes becomes even clearer upon reading the
concurring and dissenting opinions in Jaffree. Although "head-counting"
of Justices is generally a poor way to think about constitutional issues, it
is certainly worth doing before one proposes what might be an unneces-
sary constitutional amendment. Three members of the Court, Chief Jus-
tice Burger and Justices Rehnquist and White, dissented in Jaffree and
would have upheld even the Alabama statute that explicitly specified
prayer. Justice O'Connor, concurring, stated that moment-of-silence
statutes that did not expressly promote prayer would be constitutional,
noting that scholars have "suggested that a moment of silence in public
schools would be constitutional. As a general matter, I agree."20 Justice
Powell, concurring, stated that "I agree fully with Justice O'Connor's as-
sertion that some moment-of-silence statutes may be constitutional, a sug-
gestion set forth in the Court's opinion as well."21 Five members of the
Court have thus stated clearly that they would sustain moment of silence
laws that did not involve legislative promotion of religion by singling out
prayer as one of the officially preferred activities. They might well be
joined by all the other members of the Court to make that result
unanimous.
I would not suggest that Congress set aside its proposed constitutional
amendment in reliance on a parsing of the opinions in Jaffree were I not
also convinced that the Court's apparent resolution of this prob-
16. Id. at 2491 n.45.
17. Id. at 2491.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 2505 (Burger, C.J., dissenting); id. at 2508 (White, J., dissenting); id. (Rehnquist, J.,
dissenting).
20. Id. at 2499 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (citations omitted).
21. Id. at 2493 (Powell, J., concurring).
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
lem-sustaining laws that simply create an undesignated, neutral moment
of silence, while invalidating those that involve governmental promotion or
endorsement of "prayer"-is fundamentally sound and therefore likely to
become stable constitutional doctrine. As I will attempt to show, neutral
moments of silence can withstand criticism both from those who believe
that all moment-of-silence statutes (including those specifically designating
prayer) should be sustained, and from those who would argue that all
silence laws (including those that are facially neutral) should be held
unconstitutional.
Jaffree's invalidation of a silence law "merely" because it added to pre-
existing law the words "or voluntary prayer" has been criticized by those
who would have sustained it as unduly fastidious. Justice White, dissent-
ing, read the Alabama legislature's addition of the word "prayer" not as a
state suggestion or endorsement of prayer, but rather as an informational
device that merely let students know that prayer is one acceptable activity.
So read, White suggests, the statute should no more be unconstitutional
than would be a teacher answering in the affirmative if a student were to
ask if it is permissible to pray during a moment of silence.22
The notion that explicit designation of "prayer" in a state statute does
not constitute state endorsement or encouragement seems disingenuous.
Imagine a state statute providing that a moment of silence be conducted at
the beginning of each school day for "meditation or erotic fantasy." Could
one plausibly say in that case that the state is being wholly "neutral" with
regard to "erotic fantasy," that the statute merely reflects the fact that
students can (and some no doubt will) use any period of silence for that
purpose? In my view, the seemingly trivial fact of the addition of the word
"prayer" crosses the line of constitutionality precisely because it is utterly
unnecessary to the goal of creating a formal opportunity for reflection in
which students can, if they wish, choose to pray. That purpose is wholly
accomplished by a statute or policy that simply provides that a moment of
silence be set aside. If a simple moment of silence is created, parents,
priests, rabbis, and ministers can, if they wish, suggest to their children or
parishioners that they use the moment of silence for prayer. Providing in
the state's Code of Laws that "prayer" is a designated activity takes the
state itself across a thin line and into the improper business of official
endorsement of a religious exercise.
The other apparent conclusion of Jaffree-that moment-of-silence stat-
utes not specifically mentioning prayer are constitutionally permissible-is
somewhat more problematic. As I continue to reflect on this problem, I
22. Id. at 2508 (White, J., dissenting).
The Sound of Silence
become less certain that such laws should be upheld,23 (even though I
remain convinced that the Supreme Court will in fact sustain such stat-
utes). Silence can be a powerful message. Since a normal school day ordi-
narily includes any number of occasions during which an individual stu-
dent acting on her own initiative can engage in a moment of silent prayer
or reflection, the formal creation in public school classrooms of an organ-
ized, teacher-supervised moment of silence is an event that has no readily
apparent purpose-unless the government is attempting to convey a mes-
sage.24 Even where no textual mention is made of prayer, a community of
observers may well perceive that the "meaning" of a school-organized mo-
ment of silence is that the government is endorsing something, and that
something might be seen as religion. As Dean Redlich notes, "[a]ll pre-
scribed moments of silence are highly suspect."28
There remains, nonetheless, a substantial basis for the Court's conclu-
sion that "pure" moment-of-silence statutes should be sustained. Com-
mentators who have found such statutes invalid²⁶ have generally done so
for reasons that seem to me to be unpersuasive. Some have found that
neutral moment-of-silence statutes fail to be supported by a "secular pur-
pose"-the first requirement of what is awkwardly known as the "three-
pronged Lemon test" used by the Court in establishment clause cases.²⁷.
The district court that decided May U. Cooperman,28 for example, first
found that the alleged secular purposes of a silence statute-such as pro-
23. Compare my testimony in the 1983 Hearings, supra note 4, 369-70.
24. For thoughtful discussions of these issues, see Gedicks, Motivation, Rationality, and Secular
Purpose in Establishment Clause Review, 1985 ARIZ ST. L.J. 677, 720-721, and Marshall, "We
Know It When We See It:" The Supreme Court and Establishment, 59 S. CAL L. REV. 495, 541-44
(1986).
25. Redlich, Separation of Church and State: The Burger Court's Tortuous Journey, 60 NOTRE
DAME L. REV. 1094, 1136 (1985). Dean Redlich nonetheless agrees that "one can conclude that a
'pure' moment of silence law is probably valid unless the legislative history dilutes the purity." Id. at
1135 (citation omitted).
26. See. e.g., Note, The Unconstitutionality of State Statutes Authorizing Moments of Silence in
the Public Schools. 96 HARV. L. REV. 1874 (1983); Note, Daily Moments of Silence in Public
Schools: A Constitutional Analysis, 58 N.Y.U. L. REV. 364 (1983) [hereinafter cited as Note, Daily
Moments of Silence).
27. The "lest" was first fashioned into a formula in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13
(1971). There, the Court attempted to reduce its rich jurisprudence of religion into a three-part
formula. To "pass muster" under the establishment clause: "First, the statute must have a secular
legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with reli-
gion.'' Id. (citations omitted).
Like most such formulae, the "three-pronged Lemon test" tends to give a misleading impression
that some fixed mechanism can lead to consistent and predictable results. This test is an example of
the unfortunate "formulaic style" of opinion-writing that the Supreme Court has been given to in
recent years. As Charles Black, Jr. has written: "Some people seem to think such general formulae
should be essayed as often as possible; I think they should be constructed as rarely as possible." C.
BLACK, DECISION ACCORDING TO LAW 61-62 (1981). See also Nagel, The Formulaic Constitution,
84 MICH. L. REV. 165 (1985).
28. 572 F. Supp. 1561 (D.N.J. 1983).
1637
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
viding a transition to the school day or a means for settling children
down-were "pretextual," post-hoc rationalizations. Since no legitimate
"secular purpose" was found for the statute, it was held invalid.2
The problem with this analysis is the initial assumption that a literal
"secular purpose" is required. The "secular purpose" part of the Lemon
formula is a somewhat inaccurate reformulation of the sensible principle
drawn from earlier cases that if the purpose of an enactment is the ad-
vancement (or inhibition) of religion, it violates the Establishment
Clause. The encapsulation of this principle as the "secular purpose
prong" does not quite capture the original meaning: The absence of a
secular purpose is not co-extensive with the presence of a forbidden pur-
pose of advancing religion. The creation of a moment of reflective silence
may be a case falling precisely into this gap. A statute that provides an
occasion in which those who freely choose to do so may pray cannot can-
didly be described as having a "secular" purpose; this, however, does not
mean that the legislative purpose is necessarily to "advance religion," nor
(to use Justice O'Connor's promising approach) does such a neutral mo-
ment invariably constitute a legislative "endorsement" of religion.31
A neutral moment of silence is a brief "open forum" functionally simi-
lar to the student activity period whose use for religious purposes by vol-
untary groups of university students was upheld by the Supreme Court in
Widmar U. Vincent.32 By requiring equal access by student-organized re-
ligious groups to university facilities, the Widmar decision necessarily re-
jects the proposition that the Constitution precludes prayer or religious
activity from occurring in public buildings or on other state property.
Those who would invalidate a neutral moment-of-silence law on the basis
that such a statute is a "subterfuge" for restoring prayer to the class-
room""3 thus overlook the fact that there is nothing constitutionally offen-
sive about the mere existence of prayer in the public schools or anywhere
else.³⁴ The constitutional evil to be avoided is government encouragement
29. Id. at 1572. ^ panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, even though its
decision came after the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffree. and even though it concluded that there
was no legislative intention 10 encourage prayer over other alternatives. May v. Cooperman, 780 F.2d
240, 252-53 (3d Cir. 1985).
30. The transition may have first occurred in a passing phrase in School Dist. of Abington Town-
ship V. Schempp. 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963), where Justice Clark equated the "advancement of reli-
gion" with the absence of "a secular legislative purpose."
31. Wallace V. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 2497 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring). I think that the
correct approach was most nearly captured by John Hart Ely in 1970 when he wrote that judicial
intervention is warranted whenever there is proof that a government decision "resulted from a desire
comparatively to favor or disfavor a religion or religion generally." Ely, Legislative and Administra-
tive Motivation in Constitutional Law, 79 YALE L.J. 1205, 1314 (1970).
32. 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
33. See Note, Daily Moments of Silence, supra note 26, at 371 (citations omitted).
34. For a thoughtful discussion of the open forum concept, see Loewy, School Prayer, Neutrality,
and the Open Forum: Why We Don't Need a Constitutional Amendment, 61 N.C.L. REV. 141
1638
The Sound of Silence
or inducement to pray or not to pray. As long as prayer results from the
private choice of individual citizens, the Constitution is not violated.
The fact that some legislators may hope (or even "hope and pray") that
children will choose to use an undesignated moment of reflective silence
for prayer should not in itself be sufficient to invalidate such a statute. It
is often the case that one who helps create an open, "neutral" forum has
some hope or expectation about how that forum will be used. A Republi-
can city councilman may vote to create a "first come, first served"
speaker's box in the public park in the hope that most speakers will
choose to argue persuasively the case for the virtues of the Republican
Party, while a Democratic colleague may support the ordinance with ex-
actly the opposite hope or expectation. The key factor, for neutrality anal-
ysis, is the dispositive role of private citizen choice. If the government has
scrupulously refrained from tilting the forum for or against religion or
Republicans or Democrats, but has provided an occasion for wholly free
choice by the speaker (or in our case, the meditator), uninfluenced by any
governmental endorsement or promotion, the fact that some or many legis-
lators expect or hope that many citizens will in fact use the forum as the
legislators would have wished should not in itself render the forum-
creating law invalid. Where a statute creates an open and undesignated
time for personal reflection, government itself has not undertaken compar-
atively to favor or disfavor religion.
I am thus persuaded that there is a substantial constitutional basis for
the Supreme Court's suggestion that it will sustain most statutes providing
for a simple moment of silence" while continuing to invalidate those spe-
(1982).
35. I find the argument that some neutral moment of silence statutes promote religion because
they are sponsored by the same people who previously supported oral prayer statutes (or silence
statutes specifically designating prayer) to be unpersuasive. What these legislatures have in fact done
is to move from a statutory framework under which prayer was established or explicitly suggested by
the government to one in which any prayer that occurs will be a product of private citizen choice.
That, in my view, is a constitutionally critical difference.
36. One plausible piece of "legislative history" that could provide a basis for sustaining a state
statute creating a neutral moment of silence would be a statement by the sponsoring State Representa-
live to the effect:
The bill I have introduced provides simply that there will be one minute of silence at the
beginning of each school day. I would not bother to bring this bill forward if I did not have
some idea about how I would like to see that time used. Quite frankly, my personal goal is
that I want my children to have an opportunity for a silent prayer each day, and I will, as a
parent, encourage them 10 use the time for that purpose. You, however, may want your chil-
dren to reflect upon the evils of racism or sexism, or the need for a more humane society. This
legislation does not in any way suggest or favor any of these alternatives over the others. It
merely creates an opportunity for personal reflection.
While I would not think it accurate to say that this legislator had a "secular purpose," neither would
I say of this statute that its purpose was the "advancement or inhibition of religion," or that it was
designed comparatively 10 favor or disfavor religion.
37. It is possible, of course, that any particular moment of silence might be implemented by local
officials in a manner that impermissibly promoted religion generally or a particular religion. For
1630
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
cifically designating prayer. The Supreme Court has in fact consistently
reached sound results in cases involving religion in the public schools and
state universities, and is unlikely to arrive at results in this area that con-
flict with common sense. And here common sense would seem to indicate
that a moment of reflective silence does not ordinarily constitute a legisla-
tive endorsement of religion, while the creation of a moment of silence
"for prayer" does constitute such an endorsement.
II.
Whether or not a neutral moment for reflective silence is theoretically
sound constitutional doctrine, the fact remains that the Supreme Court is
likely to sustain such statutes. Anyone who can count to five should con-
clude, as Justice White did, that "a majority of the Court would approve
statutes that provided for a moment of silence but did not mention
prayer."38 If the proposed amendment is to have any operative effect,
therefore, it must do more than merely permit the setting aside of a mo-
ment of silence. And it does: It would permit government authorities at all
levels to engage in the active promotion of religious exercises. This would
be a substantial change in our constitutional fabric, but it is one that the
Senate Report obscures and nowhere defends.
By asserting that the amendment is "intended to reverse the effects of
Jaffree U. Wallace as it relates to silent prayer," and by erroneously
stating that the Supreme Court had "effectively outlawed" silent prayer,40
the Senate Report seems to suggest that the modest effect of adopting this
amendment would be no greater than a judicial decision that permitted a
state to set aside one minute for "silent prayer or meditation." Only ob-
liquely does the Report acknowledge that the real thrust of the amend-
ment would be to permit state sponsorship of a religious practice; such
acknowledgments are accompanied by assertions of limits on state promo-
tion that are simply inconsistent with the proposed amendment's text.41
school officials or teachers to urge that an undesignated moment of silence be used for prayer would,
of course, be constitutionally invalid. There are so many ways in which government officials might
promote particular religious practices that it is not possible to specify in advance all those that might
be constitutionally offensive. This is in itself an argument for rejecting the blunderbuss approach of a
constitutional amendment that would wholly withdraw the subject from judicial scrutiny, and an ar-
gument for retaining case-by-case adjudication.
38. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. at 2508 (White, J., dissenting).
39. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 27.
40. Id. at 36.
41. See id. at 29:
[1]t is intended that the Government be authorized to sponsor such prayer or reflection, to the
extent of permitting the classroom teacher or other school administrator to structure the oppor-
tunity for prayer by formally announcing the period for silent prayer or reflection, ensuring
discipline during the period for prayer, and formally concluding the period for prayer.
These suggested "limits" on state promotion of the exercises are wholly unrealistic and understated, as
1640
The Sound of Silence
The critical fact that the defenders of the amendment obscure is this:
Adoption of a constitutional amendment that states "[n]othing in this Con-
stitution shall be construed to prohibit [a certain practice]" creates some-
thing like a constitutional black hole. Once constitutional limits are re-
moved in this blanket fashion, extreme as well as moderate government
actions in furtherance of the practice will be left to the vagaries of future
political processes. The potential effects of this proposed amendment to
the Constitution are perhaps best illustrated by the following hypothetical
question: If this amendment were proposed by Congress and ratified by
the States, would there remain anything in the Constitution that would
prevent the U.S. Department of Education from issuing the following
Federal Prayer Regulation binding on each of the 38,000 local school dis-
tricts in the United States that receive federal funds?
Regulation Z-U.S. Department of Education:
Effective September 1, 2000, all school districts must, as a condi-
tion of eligibility for federal funds, comply with this regulation. Each
school district shall require that ten (10) minutes be set aside at least
six (6) times during each school day for silent prayer exercises. All
pupils must be assembled in a common place for these prayer exer-
cises. Use of prayer cards and rosary beads shall be permitted. (Non-
conforming pupils may be released from these exercises by a timely
annual filing of Form Z-1). The Superintendent of Schools, the
School Board, and every principal, teacher and counselor (except for
those excused on grounds of conscientious objection by annual filing
of Form Z-2) shall regularly urge every pupil to participate in these
silent prayer exercises through public address announcements and
individual counseling. Continued eligibility for federal funding shall
be dependent upon a school system having an affirmative program to
encourage every child to participate in the silent prayer exercises.
School districts shall file compliance forms with the Undersecretary
for Prayer at the beginning of each school year.
I do not mean to suggest that such a regulation is (in the present) polit-
ically likely.41 The proposed amendment-which would be the first
amendment of the First Amendment in its nearly 200-year-old his-
tory-could, however, be a part of a constitutional structure that may en-
dure for another two centuries. We should therefore attend to its potential
consequences regardless of time-bound notions of plausibility. I believe
that I can defend the proposition that after adoption of this proposed
amendment, Regulation Z (and similar, but less radical, federal regula-
tions) would be constitutional.
1 attempt to show below. See infra text accompanying notes 42-51.
42. But see Margaret Alwood's new novel, M. ATWOOD, THE HANDMAID'S TALE (1985).
1641
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
The amendment begins with the provision that "[n]othing in this Con-
stitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group silent prayer or
reflection in public schools." The expectation of the proponents of the
amendment may be that state and local governments would elect to create
only one-minute periods once a day to take place in the classroom where
students were already scated. But once the subject of silent prayer is liber-
ated from constitutional constraint, officials may in the course of time de-
cide that ten minutes six times a day is more-appropriate. Neither the
term "moment" nor any other time limit appears in the proposed amend-
ment. And what would stand in the way of assembling the entire student
body in daily convocation for "silent prayer"? The amendment specifically
immunizes "group" silent prayer from constitutional review, without lim-
iting the size of the "group."
It will not avail to object that the hypothetical regulation would be in-
valid because it requires local school districts to actively promote religion.
While under present constitutional law such active promotion of religion
would be invalid, it is precisely this principle that, as applied to group
silent prayer, the proposed amendment is designed to overturn. According
to the Senate Report the purpose of the amendment is to restore "the
original understanding of the 'establishment clause."43 The supposed
"original understanding" to which the Committee seeks to return is the
understanding that the Constitution only precludes government promotion
of particular sects, while permitting "congressional support for religion in
general."44
At another point the Senate Report states that the amendment's pur-
pose is "to restore the historic meaning of the first amendment [which has
been] sharply altered by the Court's decision in Jaffree."⁴⁵ Since the very
basis of the Jaffree decision is that governments may not go beyond the
creation of a moment of silence and affirmatively engage in the endorse-
ment and promotion of religion (as the Alabama legislature had done), the
only sensible reading of this passage is that government action promoting
religion (at least with respect to silent prayer exercises) will be immune
from constitutional scrutiny after the adoption of the amendment.
43. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 2.
44. Id. at 4.
45. Id. at 2.
46. The Senate Report confidently asserts as a fact the proposition that the establishment clause
("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") was only "intended" to pre-
clude the creation of a national church or governmental preference for one particular sect, and that the
First Amendment left the government free to promote, aid, and advance religion generally. Id. at 4.
There is, 10 say the least, considerable dispute about the validity of this assertion. For a recent argu-
ment that the the establishment clause precluded governmental promotion of religion generally. see L.
LEVY, The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, in CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS: ASPECTS
OF THE BILL. OF RIGHTS 135 (1986).
1642
The Sound of Silence
Either this amendment permits governments to promote group silent
prayer exercises, or it does nothing at all. If it permits government en-
dorsement and promotion, it permits it without any apparent limit, other
than that stated in the second sentence: "Neither the United States nor
any State shall require any person to participate in such prayer or reflec-
tion, nor shall they encourage any particular form of silent prayer or re-
flection." This is less of a qualification than might at first appear. Note
that the amendment forbids only the encouragement of "any particular
form" of silent prayer, thereby leaving government free to "encourage"
silent prayer generally. It forbids government from "requiring" students
to participate; it does not forbid government from encouraging students to
participate. In short, government officials at every level would be free to
promote participation by students-to suggest, counsel, and urge partici-
pation-as long as they stopped short of compulsion.
The Senate Report shows remarkably little sensitivity to the potential
effects of the amendment. In one sanguine passage the Report states that
"[a] reasonable effort should be made to minimize any inconvenience or
embarrassment caused the nonparticipating student, and to minimize the
conspicuousness with which his nonparticipation is accommodated. The
operative word here is "should." After ratification of the amendment such
sensitivity would be wholly a matter of grace with each set of government
officials. Even more striking is the Report's next sentence: "No inquiries
into the reason for such nonparticipation would be permitted." This
statement is just flatly inconsistent with the text of the amendment. The
amendment prevents officials only from "requiring" participation. It does
not prevent officials from inquiring of students why they have chosen not
to participate or from suggesting, urging, or counseling them to see the
error of their ways and join group gatherings officially designated as silent
prayer meetings. As long as officials refrain from "encouraging any par-
ticular form of silent prayer" they are free to encourage silent prayer gen-
erally. The Report also errs in assuming that the decision "[w]hether or
not to structure a devotional exercise consistent with this amendment
would be a decision in the sole discretion of those State and local authori-
ties who are otherwise responsible for determining and administering
public school policies."⁴" The amendment would remove, for group silent
The notion that government may promote "religion generally" but not any particular religion is an
almost incoherent concept. In the real world, any actions by government officials purportedly designed
10 promote "religion generally" will almost inevitably benefit some religions more than others. When
the government establishes public group prayers, for example, it favors those religions for whom
collective prayer is a tradition over those that prefer more private and individualized prayer.
47. SENATE REPORT, supra note 1, at 30.
48. Id.
49. Id. at 27.
1643
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
prayer, the constitutional barrier of the First Amendment that presently
precludes the federal government from promoting religious exercises.
Whatever decisions state and local authorities made concerning group si-
lent prayer exercises could simply be overridden by the federal govern-
ment under the spending power.
In short, while the amendment is not necessary to permit states to CS-
tablish a moment of silence, it (1) would permit state and local officials to
take whatever steps they desired (short of compulsion) to persuade pupils
to participate in silent prayer, and (2) would remove the present First
Amendment barrier that precludes federal government officials from tak-
ing steps to persuade children to engage in silent prayer exercises, or from
imposing federal silent prayer guidelines on state and local school systems.
I would not advance these objections so strongly if I believed that they
resulted only from minor problems of drafting. These and similar
problems are, on the contrary, embedded in the structure of any amend-
ment seeking to overturn either Engle or Jaffree, for the heart of those
decisions is that government itself may not sponsor, promote, or endorse
religious exercises. Once government promotion is deemed acceptable, the
amendment provides no stopping point that would limit the zeal which
federal, state, and local governments may bring to the task.⁵²
III.
Casting a shadow over the specific issues I have raised above is the
more general question of how this Silent Prayer Amendment would be
brought into harmony with the existing religion clauses of the First
Amendment. Even though this amendment deals specifically only with si-
lent prayer exercises, its underlying theory is that it is permissible for
50. The argument that federal legislative authority could be invoked was first made in testimony
in opposition to President Reagan's proposed amendment by my colleague William Van Alstyne. See
1982 Hearings, supra note 4, at 466-68 (prepared statement of Professor Van Alstyne); see also Van
Alstyne & Dellinger, Government Control of Religion?, Wash. Post, Nov. 7, 1982, at B5, col. 1.
51. Anyone who doubts that after adoption of this amendment the federal government would have
legislative jurisdiction 10 provide nation-wide guidelines requiring local school districts to hold and
actively promote group silent prayer convocations should take a look at the Equal Access Act, 20
U.S.C. § 4071 (Supp. II 1984). It provides that it shall be unlawful for any public secondary school
which receives federal financial assistance 10 deny, under described circumstances, equal access for
religious speech. Id. § 4071(a). Once the barrier 10 government-promoied silent prayer exercises had
been removed, Congress could use the spending power in precisely this way to impose whatever guide-
lines it wished on the practice of group silent prayer.
52. This is not a Naw that is likely 10 be cured by revision of the amendment. One could imagine
adding to the amendment a list of specific steps that would constitute the exclusive means that govern-
ment officials muld use to endorse and promote silent prayer exercises. Such a revision, by giving
prominent visibility to the fact that the amendment permits government endorsement and promotion
of religion, would likely spell political doom for the amendment. If all government endorsement and
promotion were forbidden, then, as I have argued above, the amendment would become a pointless
recapitulation of existing law.
1644
The Sound of Silence
government to engage in the business of promoting religion. How are the
courts to reconcile the dissonance created by this principle and the con-
trary view that has emerged through interpretations of the establishment
clause? How can one justify a jurisprudence predicated upon the notion
that the Constitution (through the First Amendment) precludes govern-
mental promotion of religion when another part of the same Constitu-
tion-the Silent Prayer Amendment-would endorse governmental pro-
motion for one kind of religious activity? Would "silent prayer" remain
an exceptional case? Or would adoption of this amendment be more prop-
erly viewed as rejection of the larger principle that forms the core of the
present establishment clause? If the latter is the case, then adoption of this
amendment could ultimately undercut the force of the establishment
clause across the entire spectrum of government-sponsored religious activi-
ties, and not simply with respect to silent prayer exercises. This is a basic
issue of constitutionalism that extends well beyond the immediate area of
prayer and religion. The awkwardness and uncertainty of reconciling the
specific with the general counsels strongly, in my view, against placing in
the Constitution any provision (other than one dealing with organizational
matters, such as the term of the President) that does not establish a consti-
tutional principle, but deals instead with one very specific practice.
IV.
It is, of course, possible that I am mistaken that this amendment would
permit active, intrusive governmental promotion of silent prayer exercises.
It is possible that the amendment would be tightly and strictly construed.
If it were interpreted to permit only the setting aside of an undesignated
moment of silence, it is simply unnecessary. If it goes one step further and
permits legislators to designate such a moment as being "for prayer"
while somehow precluding any additional promotional activities, it would
change in that one respect what seems to be the evolving law. It would, in
that case, constitute the most trivial amendment to the Constitution of the
United States ever proposed by Congress.
Even if the amendment is so trivial that its incorporation into the Con-
stitution would do no lasting harm to the fabric of religious freedom, its
submission to the states could nonetheless be a thoughtlessly harmful act.
Proposal by the Congress of an amendment to the Constitution launches
an uncertain process. ⁵ There is much that we do not know about the law
of constitutional amendment. We have no definitive answer to questions
as basic as whether a state may rescind an earlier ratification, or whether
53. On the present uncertainty of the amendment process, see Dellinger, The Legitimacy of Con-
stitutional Change: Rethinking the Amendment Process, 97 HARV. L. REV. 386 (1983).
1645
The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 95: 1631, 1986
Congress can extend a time deadline for ratification. What the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee proposes to do is to send out to fifty state capitols a
potentially divisive amendment that is likely to heighten religious tensions
in this country. From Montpelier to Sacramento, from Tallahassee to Ju-
neau, we are likely to witness ratification debates that set Jew against
Gentile, and that place the Knights of Columbus in conflict with the
United Presbyterian Church. For seven (perhaps ten) years, we may wit-
ness a struggle among religious groups over whether to ratify this appar-
ently trivial but potentially dangerous amendment to the Constitution.
I urge you and your colleagues to refrain from submitting this unwise
and unnecessary amendment to the states.
Respectfully,
Walter Dellinger /s/
Professor of Law
Duke University
1646
VOL. 2, NO. 19
Statement of Walter Dellinger
Last summer, Professor Walter Dellinger testified before both the United States Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution and the full Senate Judiciary Committee on proposed
constitutional amendments relating to school prayer. On April 29, 1983, Professor
Dellinger testified before the Subcommittee chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
on S.J. 73, a constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan. The text
of the amendment provides:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools
or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate
in prayer.
Excerpts from the transcript of Professor Dellinger's oral testimony follow.
Professor Dellinger. Senator
the Administration has attempted to
Hatch, I would prefer to summarize
avoid since last summer.
my views this morning and, with the
Senator Hatch. Well, that is a good
permission of the Chair, submit next
point.
week a full written statement address-
Professor Dellinger. I would like
ing the constitutional amendment
to cite to you, Senator, chapter and
proposed in S.J. Resolution 73.
verse from the legal analysis prepared
Senator Hatch. We will be
by the Office of Legal Policy of the
delighted to put that in the record,
Department of Justice and transmit-
without objection.
ted by the President of the United
Professor Dellinger. The constitu-
States which states, "The determina-
tional amendment, Senator Hatch,
tion of the appropriate type of prayer
proposed by this Administration is
is a decision which should properly
one that I fear would lead to govern-
be made by state and local author-
ment control of the content of reli-
ities." The Administration also
gious exercises. The issue of govern-
expressly recognizes that the amend-
ment control is one which the
ment would allow "arguably sectarian
Administration has assiduously
prayer" to be "promoted by the state."
sought to avoid discussing. Deputy
The Department of Justice's legal
Attorney General, Mr. Schmults, again
memorandum states further, "The
avoided discussing that question this
Dellinger
proposed amendment also does not
morning.
specifically limit prayer in public
I believe that if S.J. Resolution 73
Senator Hatch. Yes.
schools and other public institutions
is fully analyzed, many of those who
Professor Dellinger. Now, what is
to non-denominational prayer."
believe that they support that amend-
so troublesome about S.J. Resolution
Finally, the Administration states,
ment will not support it. It is an
73 is that several of those who testi-
"The language of the amendment is
amendment that would permit state
fied at the hearings last summer in
intended to overrule Engel v. Vitale,
officials and elected and appointed
favor of it-Mr. Murphy, the Deputy
which forbade the reading of brief
bureaucrats and politicians to com-
Supreme Knight of the Knights of
state-composed prayers" (emphasis
pose prayers and religious liturgies
Columbus, and Mr. Jarmon of Project
added).
and to require that those prayers be
Prayer-stated that they were
In the question and answer list
said in every school district in a state.
opposed to allowing state officials to
provided by the White House on May
Senator Hatch. You would not
compose and draft official prayers.
6, 1982, the White House said that
have the same objection with a silent
They did not understand this amend-
state governments "could choose
prayer?
ment to permit that. They are wrong,
prayers that have already been writ-
Professor Dellinger. No. In fact,
and I think they would not neces-
ten or they could compose their own
one of the virtues of a period of silent
sarily support this amendment if they
prayers." Indeed, there is no way
meditation is that no government offi-
were, for example, to attend to the
around that conclusion. What the
cial is involved in the composition of
Department of Justice's own analysis
amendment does is to remove the
prayer.
of this amendment-an analysis that
present First Amendment barrier to
DUKE LAW MAGAZINE 20
prayer in public schools and public
United States to prevent the federal
Senator Hatch. Let me interrupt
institutions. By removing the First
government, through bureaucrats in
you on that point.
Amendment barrier presently exist-
the United States Department of
Professor Dellinger. Yes.
ing, power resumes in state legisla-
Education, from conditioning all fed-
Senator Hatch. I really think you
tures, which have control over the
eral funding in 38,000 school districts
are doing the Committee a great ser-
schools of the state, to make whatever
in the United States on those school
vice in pointing that out. I feel the
rules or regulations they wish.
districts engaging in a religious exer-
same way. I feel we have to resolve
So, for example, if this amend-
cise which is composed, drafted, and
that in this Subcommittee in what WE
ment is adopted and ratified by three-
mandated by bureaucrats in the
will come up with as a final draft of
fourths of the states, a local school
United States Department of Educa-
this constitutional amendment.
board could have a meeting of its
tion. If there were any doubt as to the
I agree with you that the Adminis
elected officials and sit down and
plausibility of that scenario, I think
tration witnesses have carefully
hammer out and compose a prayer
that doubt is removed by the fact that
skirted that issue.
that every school within the district
that very same legislative device has
Professor Dellinger. My colleague
in every classroom is required to
been utilized in two bills which are
William Van Alstyne, and I published
recite every day. An individual child, I
also before this Committee.
a short piece in the Washington Post
quite clearly understand, could
Senator Hatch. Do you think a
and indicated the possibility that the
absent himself from such an exercise.
statute could actually enable that to
federal government would indeed
But the vice here is the composition
happen?
have the authority under the spend-
of that prayer by school board
Professor Dellinger. Yes. Congress
ing power, if this amendment passed
officials.
could say that future federal funding
to mandate a federally-composed
If the state department of public
to all 38,000 school districts is depen-
prayer. There followed a considerable
instruction is not satisfied with what
dent upon those school districts fol-
silence from the Department of Jus-
some localities are requiring in the
lowing the religious ritual mandated
tice which I think recognized the cor
way of sectarian prayer, that depart-
by Congress, or it could simply turn
rectness of our position. We did find
ment could mandate its own bureau-
that determination over to the Depart-
a response published in the Post from
cratically-composed prayer required
ment of Education for the issuance of
the Deputy in the Department of
of every school district in the state.
appropriate religious liturgy and
Education, who just simply character
approved liturgical guidelines.
ized that suggestion as ludicrous. We
Now, the Administration is obvi-
wrote back in response and went
The vice bere is the
ously very concerned about the issue
through the Department of Justice's
of who would control and compose
own memorandum, citing the Depart
composition of [an
the prayers because they seek in
ment's own acknowledgement that
official] prayer by school
every way possible to avoid that issue.
government control could follow
The Deputy Attorney General's testi-
from this amendment.
board officials.
mony was carefully rewritten from
The First Amendment has been
last year to dance around their pre-
part of our Constitution for 192 year:
vious clear acknowledgement that
and this amendment, were it, say, the
The Administration must acknowl-
state officials could compose prayers
Twenty-Seventh Amendment, would
edge this to be so, because the very
if that amendment were adopted.
be part of our Constitution perhaps
case they expressly seek to overrule,
Senator Hatch. I would have to
for centuries to come, and it would
Engel v. Vitale, involved a prayer
acknowledge that.
thus permanently remove the First
whose vice was that it was composed
Professor Dellinger. Once you
Amendment barrier to control of
by state government officials. It was
remove the only barrier in the Consti-
prayer by government officials.
composed by state officials who were
tution that prevents a prayer from
My only closing remark, Senator,
politically appointed and who drafted
being drafted by government officials
is that I wish, if representatives of
and composed an official prayer for
-once you remove that by com-
either the Department of Education
New York public schools.
pletely carving out of the Constitution
or the Department of Justice come
Finally, we need to look at an
all issues relating to prayer in public
back before the Commitee on this
aspect of this proposal that should be
schools and other public institutions,
issue, I would like to see the Com-
seriously considered by someone
then whoever is in charge of the
who has shown the great concern for
premises, whatever level of govern-
the principles of federalism that you
ment has ultimate authority to make
Government control
have exhibited throughout your
determinations about the public
career in the United States Senate.
institution or public school, has a
could follow from this
Ponder this next possibility: If this
constitutional carte blance to draft
amendment is adopted, there would
and determine whatever the prayer
amendment.
be nothing in the Constitution of the
will be.
VOL. 2, NO. 1 21
mittee directly put to those officials
McCulloch v. Maryland. So, those
sion to deal with any truly voluntary
-for example, to the Deputy Attor-
who drafted the Fourteenth Amend-
student activity, they expressly held
ney General-this question: if this
ment and sent it to the states were
that on state university property, built
amendment is adopted and ratified
familiar both with the concept of judi-
with state funds and paid for by state
by the states, will there be anything in
cial review and with an open-textured
taxpayers, you could indeed have
the Constitution that would probibit
reading of the Constitution. They
prayer. And you could have worship
the federal government from condi-
knew John Marshall, SO in that sense
to the extent that the facilities were
tioning the receipt of federal funds in
they knew what they were doing.
available to similarly situated, non-
all school districts in the United States
Senator Hatch. That is great. In
religious organizations. That was con-
on the adoption by those school dis-
light of the intent of the Framers con-
curred in, might I say, by Justices
tricts of federal religious exercise
cerning the Establishment Clause of
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell,
guidelines issued by the United States
the First Amendment, do you not feel
Rehnquist, Stevens, and O'Connor
Department of Education?
that there is a need for amending the
and by the Chief Justice-eight of
Senator Hatch. We will be happy
Constitution to erase the Court's
the nine Justices agreeing on a single
to submit that to them.
error?
opinion.
Professor Dellinger. Thank you.
Professor Dellinger. I am not at all
Senator Hatch. That is astounding.
Senator Hatch. We will see that
persuaded that the Court is in error.
Professor Dellinger. I think what
they answer that question.
Senator, one problem is this: the
we have here is a non-problem, a
What about the intent of the Four-
Supreme Court's decisions have only
problem which, if it exists, it exists
teenth Amendment to incorporate
invalidated teacher-led, school-ini-
because a lot of school principals
the First Amendment?
tiated, government-sponsored prayer.
have been misled by statements
Professor Dellinger. Those are
Now, this Committee has heard accu-
attributing to the Supreme Court
issues that I think, Senator, are buried
rate statements from around the
something the Supreme Court has
in the womb of time. I certainly agree
country that there are school princi-
never held.
that the First Amendment of the Con-
pals who say, "We cannot allow the
Senator Hatch. Well, let me at
stitution was only intended to limit
Fellowship of Christian Athletes to
least say this. Things have been so
the federal government and not to
have a meeting at our school, even
limit the states at all.
though we permit the key club and
After the adoption of the Four-
the rodeo club to meet."
What we have bere is a
teenth Amendment, it then became
There are school principals
the responsibility of the courts to
around the country that think that. Do
non-problem which
determine the content of liberty pro-
you know why they think that? They
tected against state interference by
think that, in part, because the Presi-
exists because a lot of
the Fourteenth Amendment. There
dent of the United States and many
are many sources for a court to pro-
distinguished members of Congress
school principals have
vide some content for that "liberty."
have for many years been misleading
been misled.
One source is to look and see what
the American people by constantly
liberties were guaranteed against the
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court
federal government, and to ask
has forbidden all prayer in the
confused that there at least has been
whether the meaning of the Four-
public schools.
a chilling effect on the free exercise
teenth Amendment is that those same
That just is not true, but unfortu-
of religion.
liberties should be applied against
nately a lot of school principals
Professor Dellinger. I think that
the state governments.
believe what United States Senators
may be a problem.
Even those Justices who do not
and Presidents tell them the Supreme
Senator Hatch. It may take a con-
believe in some strict incorporation,
Court has decided. Members of Con-
stitutional amendment to resolve that
however, like Justices Harlan and
gress have gone out telling people
problem, in the opinion of a number
Frankfurter, believed that the prin-
over and over again, and the Presi-
of us.
ciple of liberty guaranteed against
dent has said as a candidate and later,
Professor Dellinger. Well, the
state infringement by the Fourteenth
that the Supreme Court of the United
reason I think we do not need a con-
Amendment is one which the courts
States has forbidden little children to
stitutional amendment is that the
are in a very real sense charged with
pray in schools. And what happens?
Supreme Court has not addressed the
developing.
Some people take them at their word,
question of whether high schools,
You have to remember, Senator,
including a lot of school principals
junior high schools, or any school
that the Congress which proposed
who think that you cannot allow any
that allows student-initiated, volun-
the Fourteenth Amendment was
prayer on public premises.
tary activities must also allow student-
made up very largely of lawyers-
The Supreme Court has never
initiated religious clubs.
lawyers who were fully familiar with
held that. And when the Court in
What evidence do we have on this
both Marbury U. Madison and
Widmar v. Vincent had the first Occa-
question? We have an eight-to-one
DUKE LAW MAGAZINE 22
opinion that firmly states the prin-
This
amendment
doubt that that is not going to be the
ciple that you can use public prop-
final language out of this Committee;
erty for religious activities-an eight-
[creates] a First
at least I do not believe it will be.
to-one decision of the United States
Professor Dellinger. People tend
Supreme Court in the college setting.
Amendment black bole
to overreact to lower court decisions.
The Court noted in a footnote, "We
We have a whole lot of federal judges
do not reach in this case the high
with respect to prayer.
these days, and in area after area I
school issue." I am willing to bet,
find people overreacting to lower
Senator, though I know that you are
court decisions which often do not
not a betting man, that in a case
prayer, no matter how many politi-
stand the test of time when they
involving truly student-intiated, volun-
cians and bureaucrats were involved
come to the scrutiny of the United
tary activities in a public school set-
in divisive religious warfare in agree-
States Supreme Court.
ting, the Supreme Court will apply
ing on the liturgy, when such a case
Senator Hatch. I agree with you
the principles of Widmar and forbid
comes to the Supreme Court they are
on that. You know, among you, Bill
discrimination against truly voluntary
going to say that nothing in this
Van Alstyne, and Don Horowitz, I
extra-curricular activities involving
Constitution prohibits it.
think we have had some tremendous
religious speech.
Senator Hatch. Let me just say
testimony up here I just want to
The idea that we need a consti-
something to you. I have really appre-
personally thank you for being with
tutional amendment to beat the
ciated your testimony today because
us today. As usual, you folks from
Supreme Court to the punch-an
I agree with much of it.
Duke never let us down. You know, I
amendment to the Constitution to
Professor Dellinger. Well, Senator,
commend your university for having
deal with, at the most, two erroneous
one of the reasons I enjoy testifying
the high quality of thinking that you
decisions of lower three-judge court
before this Committee is that you take
have down there. I do not always
panels-does not strike me as very
these issues very seriously.
agree with you, but that does not
persuasive, given the risk that this
Senator Hatch. Well, let me say
mean that I am right either. All I can
particular amendment does so much
that I think you and your colleague,
say is that I think you have added a
more by creating a First Amendment
Bill Van Alstyne, have both contrib-
lot to this Committee's deliberation
black hole with respect to prayer.
uted generously to this Committee
and the future deliberations of this
When you create a black hole in
and to its thought processes on con-
Committee on this very important
the Constitution-which is what you
stitutional issues. I think you have
issue. Thank you so much, Professor
do when you use the language
been very helpful. I have had lots of
Dellinger; we appreciate it.
"nothing in this Constitution prohib-
questions about the Administration's
Professor Dellinger. Thank you.
matter how sectarian the
constitutional amendment. I have no
OnJuly 27, 1983, Professor Dellinger testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
chaired by Senator Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), on the original Administration proposal,
S.J. 73, and on a milder substitute proposal by Senator Hatch permitting for a moment
of silence for prayer or meditation and requiring equal access to the use of public school
facilities for all luntary student groups (which would include voluntary student religious
groups). Dellinger first addressed again the original Administration proposal, S.J. 73.
Professor Dellinger. Mr. Chairman,
of Education. My colleague and I pre-
my statement is not a formally-pre-
[The central issue is:]
viously challenged the Administra-
pared statement. I would like to
tion in the Washington Post and in my
directly confront the statements made
Who will compose the
testimony last April to show why this
by the previous witness, the Deputy
would not be the case. They had no
Attorney General, which I think go to
group prayer?
answer then; they have not answered
the heart of the matter that is before
since; they have not answered that
this Committee. I think that once
question today.
again spokesmen for the Administra-
would be nothing left in that docu-
When you asked the Deputy
tion have evaded addressing the cen-
ment that would prevent federal
Attorney General the very pertinent
tral issue under the Administration's
bureaucrats in the Department of
question this morning, at what level
proposal, S.J. Resolution 73: Who will
Education from requiring, as a condi-
of government would the determina-
compose the group prayer?
tioning of federal funding, that local
tion of the proper prayer be made,
If S.J. Resolution 73 is adopted as
school districts adopt religious prayer
he said, "Oh, we expect the determi-
a part of the Constitution, there
guidelines issued by the Department
nation to be made by local people,
VOL. 2, NO.
maybe even in each classroom." But
The Chairman [Senator
gestion to make that would modify
the first local determination could
Thurmond]. Did you have any sug-
that or remedy that?
clearly be overruled, as can all other
gestions on that point? What would
Professor Dellinger. The only sug-
affairs in the school districts, by the
you suggest?
gestion I have, Senator, is that the
school board, by the state education
Professor Dellinger. I would sug-
Committee propose no amendment.
board, by the state legislature, or by
gest, Senator, that no amendment that
The Chairman. Well, if they do
whoever would otherwise have
eliminates the constitutional barrier
propose one, what do you suggest?
authority to set the rules.
to organized group prayer in the
Professor Dellinger. Senator, I do
Only one thing now prevents
public schools can avoid the problem
not believe that any constitutional
state and federal officials from pre-
of having a government official deter-
amendment is necessary.
scribing their preferred official reli-
mine that prayer.
The Chairman. In other words,
gious guidelines, and that one thing
The Chairman. I understand.
do you not think it could be modi-
is the First Amendment's ban on
Now, you are opposed to that?
fied to stand the test?
government-sponsored prayers in the
Professor Dellinger. Yes, sir.
Professor Dellinger. No, I do not
public schools, a ban the Adminis-
The Chairman. I understand your
think it could be modified in any way
tration explicitly wishes to overturn.
position. But now, do you have a sug-
to make it acceptable.
Professor Dellinger then addressed the modified school prayer amendment offered
as a committee substitute by Senator Hatch. The Hatch substitute would propose a
constitutional amendment providing that:
Section 1. Nothing in this Constitu-
mittee substitute concerning equal
there are "lots of lower court deci-
tion shall be construed to prohibit
access for student groups states a
sions" holding that silent prayer is
individual or group silent prayer or
basically sound constitutional prin-
impermissible. I beg to differ. On my
meditation in public schools. Nei-
ciple. It is indeed with some reluc-
count, there are now three lower fed-
ther the United States nor any State
tance, given how preferable the
eral court decisions which hold
shall require any person to partici-
Committee substitute is, that I urge
moment of silence statutes unconsti-
pate in prayer or meditation, nor
shall they encourage any particular
you not to report either of these pro-
tutional; and a fourth issuance of a
form of prayer or meditation.
posed constitutional amendments to
temporary restraining order in New
Section 2. Nothing in this Constitu-
the Senate floor.
Jersey. There are also three lower
tion shall be construed to prohibit
The two provisions in the Com-
court decisions sustaining moments
equal access to the use of public
mittee substitute, which I will refer
of silence-one by the New
school facilities by all voluntary stu-
to as the "moment of silence/equal
Hampshire court, one by the New
dent groups.
access" amendment, generally rep-
Jersey state court, one by the federal
Professor Dellinger. I would like
resent present law, or the law that
district court in Massachusetts.
to commend the Subcommittee for
I would expect the Supreme Court to
The opinion of scholars who have
its wisdom in offering a substitute for
adopt. There are three relevant
studied this constitutional issue, how-
what I think is the extremely dan-
Supreme Court decisions. They do
ever, is that a pure moment of silence
gerous amendment proposed by
not preclude all prayer in the public
would be sustained by the United
President Reagan which was unfor-
schools. They do not preclude an
States Supreme Court. It therefore
tunately defended again this morning
individual student from quietly saying
seems to me clearly premature to
by Deputy Attorney General Schmults.
a prayer. They do not preclude a
adopt this amendment.
The Subcommittee proposal which
school board from adopting a pure
The Chairman. As I understand
Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley
moment for silent meditation which
your position, Professor Dellinger,
have endorsed avoids the central vice
would afford an opportunity for indi-
you are strongly opposed to the Pres-
of the Administration's proposal since
vidual prayer. The Deputy Attorney
ident's proposal on the grounds that
it provides for a moment of silent
General stated this morning that
it is very dangerous, and as to the
prayer or meditation. It thus leaves to
alternative, you feel that they can do
each individual child the choice of a
that now without a constitutional
prayer or whether to pray at all. That
Relevant Supreme Court
amendment; is that correct?
avoids the problem of government
Professor Dellinger. I think that is
control of the prayer itself. It does not
decisions
do
not
what the Supreme Court will hold,
give a constitutional carte blanche to
Senator. A school board policy that
government officials, as does the
preclude all prayer in the
there will be a moment of reflective
Reagan proposal, to compose official
silence observed at the beginning of
prayer.
public schools.
each school day would in my view
The second portion of the Com-
pass constitutional muster. If you add
DUKE LAW MAGAZINE / 24
the word "prayer," or specifically sug-
The Administration's
Knights of Columbus in conflict with
gest prayer in the school board
the United Presbyterian Church. For
policy, I have some doubt about its
proposal is, in my opinion,
7 to 10 years, we will have a struggle
validity. If one is litmus-paper sensi-
among religious groups over whether
tive to establishment violations, I
deeply pernicious.
to adopt these amendments.
think you would have to find there a
This is a time in our country and
trace of establishmentism, since the
other countries when many religious
government would be specifically
unnecessary but might clarify the
minorities feel that there is great
suggesting that one of the things you
situation, why not adopt it? I think
stress on religious liberty. To propose
might do with your time is utilize it
there is a very good reason for not
either amendment would add to that
for prayer. I would therefore think it
proposing an unnecessary consti-
stress.
more constitutionally defensible if
tutional amendment dealing with
To summarize my views on the
any moment of silence were desig-
prayer.
two amendments, I find it extraordi-
nated simply as a moment for reflec-
During the ratification debate
nary that anyone who is serious about
tion-period, and letting each indi-
over the Equal Rights Amendment,
religion could support S.J. 73, the
vidual child choose how to use that
we learned how much we do not
Reagan Administration's proposal,
time, free of governmental sugges-
know about the ratification process.
that could lead to meddling by gov-
tion. Their parents can suggest that
We do not know whether states can
ernment officials and bureaucrats in
they use it for prayer; their ministers,
rescind a ratification. We have no
determining the proper, official, gov-
their rabbis can suggest that they use
definitive answer to whether Con-
ernmentally-sanctioned prayer. And I
it for prayer-or, if they wish, the
gress can extend the time for rati-
am unpersuaded that we need a con-
children may reflect on non-religious
fication. Proposing amendments at
stitutional amendment to deal with
matters. But whether or not the word
this time is a very uncertain process.
issues that have not yet come before
"prayer" appears in a moment of
What this Committee proposes to do
the Supreme Court concerning a
silence provision, I think the Supreme
is to send to 50 state capitals two
moment of reflective silence and
Court might well sustain such a pol-
potentially divisive amendments, one
equal access to public school facil-
icy. Justice Brennan so indicated in
that would be harmful, and one that
ities, when the amendment process
his concurring opinion in Abington
is unnecessary, which are likely to
itself could foster religious strife and
Township v. Schempp.
heighten religious tensions in this
turmoil in 50 state legislatures.
Thus, while the Administration's
country. From Montpelier to Sacra-
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
proposal is, in my opinion, deeply
mento, from Tallahassee to Juneau,
members of the Committee.
pernicious, the Subcommittee substi-
you are inviting proceedings that set
tute is merely unnecessary. If it is
Jew against Gentile, that put the
Melanne Verveer
Office of the First Lady
Room 101 OEOB
office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 12, 1995
PRESS BRIEFING
BY SECRETARY OF EDUCATION RICHARD RILEY
AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WALTER DELLINGER
The Briefing Room
1:30 P.M. EDT
SECRETARY RILEY: Thank you. The President's speech
today is, as you know, the third speech in the last seven days in
which he has articulated and defined his views on finding new common
ground for the American people. At Georgetown last week, his speech
on civic responsibility, and just a few days ago in Nashville at the
Vice President's conference on the family and the media, the
President got to the heart of the concerns that are troubling so many
Americans over the breakdown of values and related issues.
The last two years I have visited with many educators,
parents, religious leaders, and I've become increasingly aware of the
real need to find a new common ground when it comes to the place of
religious expression and religious freedom in our schools. Public
schools should not be hostile to religion. They must protect the
established rights of students -- and there are many, as you can see
from the directive that the President has just issued.
Confusion about what the courts will and will not allow
should not lead teachers or principals to violate the many
established religious rights of students. But we really do need to
do a better job, I think, of giving school officials the kind of
information that they do need to protect those rights. And I believe
that this directive will go a long way to reducing the confusion and
ending the unnecessary litigation. And I think that's very good.
In his speech, the President is saying quite clearly
that too many people have interpreted the Supreme Court decisions as
precluding religious expression. He strongly disagrees and believes
that the decisions do, in fact, allow great latitude for religious
expression in a very significant way.
The President feels that those who believe that
religious expression, religious freedom are precluded by the
decisions of the Court and the Constitution are wrong. Equally, the
President rejects those who want organized prayer in our public
schools also. Public schools and, for that matter, any other level
of government should not interfere or intrude on a family's religious
beliefs, and goes against our grain to coerce people on something so
important as their religious beliefs. Public education should be
respectful of religion, open to appropriate religious expression and
teach about religion because it is so very much a part of our
nation's history.
But teachers and principals should not be in the
position of advocating religion. Freedom of conscience and freedom
of religion are at the very heart of American democracy. And that's
why we should be very cautious about tampering with the Bill of
Rights. The President has always been opposed to altering the First
Amendment. It has never been altered ir the entire history of this
nation and it should not be altered now.
MORE
- 2 -
Today, however, we want to stress where we can find a
new common ground. And I think this is the right way to go to
resolve many of the conflicts that are out there, and get on with the
important work of education.
Now, let me introduce Walter Dellinger, who's
representing the Attorney General. Walter is Assistant Attorney
General, and legal counsel to the Attorney General.
Walter.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
The President took a step today that other presidents
should have taken a long time ago. And that step was to instruct his
Secretary of Education to be very aggressive about letting the school
districts of this country know that it is not, in fact, the case that
the Constitution has expelled religion from the public schools of
America.
I can recall more than a dozen years ago, in 1983, when
the Congress was considering these issues before; and how many of us
testified at that time that much of what was driving this problem and
causing so much divisiveness and confusion and conflict was a
widespread sense, created by a number of public figures who would
repeatedly tell the American people that God and religion were
precluded from our public schools.
Unfortunately, some school officials, some principals
were confused by that and believed what they heard; and would rule
that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes could not meet on school
property, even though a wide array of other clubs were meeting. They
would say that all their students were free to bring virtually any
book of their choice to school; they couldn't bring the Bible. And
if you're doing a book report, you couldn't report on a book that was
about religion even if you had a broad range of topics otherwise to
choose from. So that there was this very unfortunate dynamic in
which the misunderstanding about what the religious rights of
Americans truly are, including those Americans who are our children,
fed a drive to violate one of our other basic principles. And that
principle was enunciated by Justice Black over three decades ago when
he said that it is no part of the business of government to compose
prayers for any group of the American people. That's a bedrock
principle.
But as Justice O'Connor wrote in 1990 for the Court,
there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing
religion which the establishment cause forbids, and private speech
endorsing religion which the First Amendment protects. It should
have been clear for a long time that student religious groups are
entitled to hold meetings at their schools, just as other
extracurricular groups are allowed to meet; that they can come
together to discuss their religious beliefs with each other, to pray,
to read religious scriptures, and that they have the same right as
other groups to publicize their meetings through the school's
bulletin board and its newspapers and over its PA system.
It should have been clear for a long time that the
Constitution does not require the subject of religion to be excluded
from the classrooms. In the plainest terms a school need not attempt
to teach about the abolitionist movement in America, while avoiding
any mention of its wellspring in religion. And there's no reason for
a school to exclude from a lesson about the civil rights movement any
sense of how it drew so much of its strength from the African
American church in the southern communities of this nation.
MORE
- 3 -
Needless to say, the application of these principles
will sometimes require the making of careful judgment and the drawing
of narrow lines. But the President has directed the Secretary to
make sure that every school district understands those rights of
religion that are available and that this be made clear to them while
the President is maintaining his commitment to the bedrock principle
that forbids government itself from interfering with or promoting
religion.
And we'll be happy to take your questions.
Q
Does this mean you can have prayer in the
classroom, you can have an organized prayer in the classroom, you
have a moment of silence, or does it mean that the teacher has all of
these problems that she will face in terms of religious response?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, I might say, first of all, that
all of these issues are out there now. We didn't create any issues
--
Q Nobody said you did.
SECRETARY RILEY: No, but I say that those problems
that you mentioned, they are problems now. We've tried to clarify as
best possible those areas which can be clarified based upon court
decisions and the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Now, a lot of things haven't been clarified yet, and
those generally are not dealt with. So you cannot have, under the
Court decisions -- and maybe Professor Dellinger should speak to that
-- but you can't have, obviously, a school-sponsored prayer in the
school or whatever. However, this idea of private prayer in the
school is an entirely different matter.
Q
But that doesn't that begs the question that
Helen just asked. ANd that is, somebody can sit and choose to drop
out of class and not pay attention and pray. But that's different
than the teacher saying, okay, we're going to set aside a period of
time, a moment of silence -- for want of a better word -- which has,
in a lot of school districts, not been allowed to happen because it's
been considered prayer in school. What's your -- what is the
administration's position on a moment of silence?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: Well, I can say
-- to answer Ms. Thomas' question first -- that you cannot have
religious activities that are organized by any government official,
and that includes teachers and principals as well as school
superintendents. They're not to do that.
And I think, in response to Ms. Braver's question, that
a majority of the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that a neutral
moment of silence, one in which the individual and not the government
makes the decision about whether and how to pray, is constitutional.
Q So it's okay in the classroom, right?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: A true neutral
moment of silence the Court will sustain.
Q
A lot of the provisions in the President's letter,
though, go right around the edges of some Court decisions. Some of
them are new ground; some of them require interpretations by the
Justice Department. Do you expect challenges on those?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: I hope and expect
that when this is communicated by the Department of Education, it
will greatly reduce the amount of conflict and controversy. Because
there are some very clearly established rights. You cannot
MORE
- 4 -
discriminate against the bringing of a book because it's the Bible.
You can't discriminate against a topic merely because it's a
religious topic. You can't discriminate against a club because it
wants to engage in religious activity. And, for example, students
who are free in the informal settings to discuss politics with each
other are also free to discuss religion. And by getting that message
out against this large counter-sense in the culture that religion has
been excluded, we hope that it will resolve a lot of controversies --
which is not to say that there is anything that any of us could do to
remove all of the controversies.
I mean, one of the areas that you will inevitably have
will arise when you try to draw that fine line between whether the
prayer is a product of government or produce of wholly private
belief. And sometimes what makes cases difficult is trying to decide
when the connection between the government and the prayers become so
attenuated that it is no longer a government decision to have prayer.
Q
What if in your truly neutral moment of silence a
student wished to unroll a prayer rug and kneel toward Mecca or
engage in some even more demonstrative prayer - would that be
permitted in the President's thinking?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: That is a detail
about that issue which we simply haven't addressed.
Q
I just want to ask you, do you consider that this
directive from the President breaks any new interpretive ground or is
simply a statement as best you can do at the Justice Department of
existing law? And, Secretary Riley, will your memo or whatever it
will be to school districts essentially just be this directive from
the President to you, or is it a document yet to be prepared that
will have further guidance interpretations in it?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, I think the answer to your first
question is it's basically an interpretation of current law, however
you put it in words, we think that are clear and are helpful.
Now, in terms of how we will then distribute, we have
instructions from the President, of course, to get to every school
district by the first of the year in time to have this kind of
information. Obviously, the directive itself will be sent to them
because it is carefully thought out and the Justice Department and
our people have worked on it together.
What we will do in addition to that I really cannot say
at this time. Whether we would try to give some clarifying examples
and other helpful information, I really cannot say at this time, but
we will certainly investigate all that. What we want to be is
helpful. We're not trying to make a point, but to be helpful as to
what religious expression is protected and so people can have that to
rely on.
Q Just to follow up, Mr. Dellinger, do you think
there are any elements of these points the President cites that push
the interpretive envelope at all or would be, as Mr. Williams
suggested, the subject of any material controversy?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: You know, it is
impossible to act in this area without controversy. And it is
impossible to develop a set of guidelines for the schools without
having to engage in very, very serious discussion and debate. We had
a lot of people talk about how we thought these basic principles
ought to be applied. And we tried to give as much guidance as
possible and to demonstrate really how much room there is for private
religious activities just as we emphasize the other principle.
MORE
- 5 -
These are two principles that really are not very hard
to keep in mind that government has no business organizing or
mandating or directing or endorsing prayers and religious activities;
and that private citizens, including those who are our students, do
have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of the
religious content of their speech. And all of their robust
activities may include their religious activities.
Those are the two great principles, both of which the
President strongly endorsed in his speech today. And what we've
tried to do is to see from looking at these two principles how we can
make specific directives, give people answers to some of their simple
questions: Can a student keep a Bible on a desk. Well, the answer
is, can they generally keep books they want on the desk. If the
answer to that question is yes, then that's the student's choice.
Q Specifically on the timing of this, how is this
geared specifically to preempting attempts on Capitol Hill to have a
constitutional amendment on school prayer?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: Well, I think in
terms of the timing, it certainly seems both to Secretary Riley, who
has been working on this issue for some time, and to others of us,
that before the country embarks on what has the potential to be a
divisive debate on religion in the schools, that it's important to
reduce the amount of confusion and misunderstanding that currently
surrounds the subject. So, in that sense, it is a good time, if
we're going to be entering a period of debate about this subject,
that we let people know really how well -- if properly interpreted,
how well our existing constitutional principles are working.
Q
If we're starting to enter down into that debate,
why didn't the President today specifically mention what several
Republicans want to do in terms of amending the Constitution?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: As far as I know,
there's no official draft or a text of a constitutional amendment.
The President's made it clear before that he is not in favor of
amending the Bill of Rights.
Q Except for the time when he said he might be --
Q
Wait. The White House has made it clear. The
President actually hasn't, has he?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: I thought the
President spoke very powerfully today that the First Amendment has
served it well and can't be improved upon. That is not consistent
with any desire to edit the Bill of Rights. And he has made it
perfectly clear that he is opposed to any editing of the Bill of
Rights, any amendment. We've been through this with other
amendments, and the President has taken the position that he is not
going to support or improve any effort to amend any part of the Bill
of Rights and the First Amendment.
Q
Will there be guidelines issued on what a truly
neutral moment of silence is? And is the administration advocating a
moment of silence in America's public schools?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: This is not
something that I believe is being advocated, but I'll let the
Secretary --
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, I don't know how much of a
guideline you have to describe neutral, but it's a pretty good word
in itself. It's my thinking that we are not recommending that, but
it has been constitutionally determined to be valid and protected if
it is, in fact, a neutral moment of silence.
MORE
- 6 -
Q Secretary Riley, does the President think that a
teacher should be able to call a moment of silence in a classroom?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, I'll tell you what I think - --
that the teacher is protected constitutionally to have a neutral
moment of silence. Now, if a teacher calls for a moment of silence
and clouds that with the language leading into the moment of silence,
it becomes not neutral.
Q
Are you going to give recommendations to them on
language that wouldn't get them in trouble?
SECRETARY RILEY: I'll have to take a look at that. I
do not expect to do that. That's a constitutionally determined
factor, but it's not one that we've dealt with here.
Q
How many school districts are there? And the
President mentioned some of the same examples you did, and said these
were rare cases not being able to say grace or not having a Bible
on the desk. Just how widespread do you think the interest is,
nationwide in the school districts to have instructions like this?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, I know for a fact that there's
an awful lot of confusion out there. And I see it and hear it. And
we've had a number of meetings all across the country with religious
leaders, with teachers, principals, students, parents, and it is very
clear to me that this kind of approach will be helpful. It is
treading on -- certainly borders on controversy every time you
mention religion in the public space. But it needs to be dealt with.
And I'm very pleased the President has.
Let me mention a couple of situations, just to give you
an example of the kind of thing. The Baptist Press reported in
December of '89 a Georgia high school principal refused to allow
students to bring Bibles, religious paraphernalia to school, and
threatened to suspend one student. In Montgomery County, Maryland, a
kindergarten student was told she could not sing a verse of a
religious song to her classmates, even though the teacher was
allowing each of the children to share his or her favorite song with
the group. And finally, a Southern California student was arrested
for praying around the flagpole before school. Now, that's just some
clear, simple examples of the kind of thing.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: Let me add just a
word to that, that while I do not know what a survey would show in
terms of how frequent has been the practice of depriving kids in
school of their individual religious rights, you do see in the
reported cases the fair persistence of the idea that religion has to
be excluded.
You will start with the case the Lubbock case in
Texas where they say, no Fellowship of Christian Athletes can meet
because the principal believes that he has learned that it would be
wrong to have the Fellowship of Christian Athletes meet, even though
there's every variety of other kinds of student groups meeting.
And then you will have cases, even after you establish
the equal access principle, that say, well, we do have an act that
would allow student groups to actually meet, but they certainly
wouldn't be allowed to pray. Well, that's clearly contrary to the
intent. And a group that can meet has the same right to engage in
prayer activity.
And then you'll have principals who will say, because
they think there is this overwhelming exclusion of private religious
speech, well, they certainly couldn't allow them to announce their
meetings on the PA system, the way other groups announce. And all of
MORE
- 7 -
these have resulted in reported cases that have gone to litigation.
I don't see them until they have gone tc the United States Court of
Appeals. So that's a lot of time and money and expense.
Q Hasn't there always been a wall, though -- I mean,
going back even to the founding fathers, between church and the
state? And who's really prevented anyone from praying in schools
throughout a lifetime?
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: Well, there have
been, Ms. Thomas, real and actual cases, and quite numerous, and
certainly before the Equal Access Act in 1984, of not allowing a
student religious group to meet on the same terms as other groups.
So you could obviously pray privately and silently as if it were some
secret and disfavored activity. But you couldn't meet and pray, even
though the Young Democrats and the Young Republicans and heaven knows
what else were meeting in the other rooms.
Q
Since the cases you're citing you portray as
misinterpretations, apparently, of what laws are already on the
books, and because today's presidential directive carries no weight
of law, what effect does this really have? Because any individual
school district, any individual, would still have the right to
challenge the current activities.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DELLINGER: I may have
inadvertently misled you. These cases have eventually come out the
right way, sometimes with the passage of legislation. It's the
school officials who have sometimes gotten the answer wrong.
Because they've heard so much and so powerfully the statement that
religion must constitutionally be excluded from the schools that they
get some of these questions wrong.
Q
To what extent do you think the President's speech
today has dealt with any sort of political attack on the issue from,
say, the religious right or from the Republican Party?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well -- and I have no way of judging
the impact on anything at this moment. I would say this: that I
think the President has the responsibility to try to lead this nation
in a way that we can resolve conflicts in a better way. And that's
what this series of talks and conversations that he's had with the
American people -- to seek new common ground. And if there's any
area in the country where this common ground is needed it's in this
area of religious expression in the public schools.
How that impacts what's going to happen in Congress, or
how -- the politics of that, that is not my concern at all. I am
concerned from a school standpoint. And in my judgment, it will be a
tremendous help and it's fresh air into a very confusing situation in
the public schools.
Q
How is a third-grade teacher in Youngstown, Ohio
going to hear about what he or she can or cannot do now under these
guidelines?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, of course, we would contact by
order the school district, maybe going further than that, but
certainly the school district. The question was asked about how
many, and I think there are approximately 15,000 school districts.
But we would notify every school district. It would be the
district's, I would think, very happy responsibility then to see that
all their principals, first of all, were informed; and the
principals, of course, their teachers and parents. So I think the
network would be very clear as far as getting the word out, and I
believe it would be received in a very positive way. People would be
relieved in many, many cases.
Q
You have clearly focused on the people in school
districts who have been cut off from religion. But how would this
- 8 -
directive be used to stop school districts from which currently
have prayer in the classrooms and go on che other side of the issue,
allowing too much religion in the classes?
SECRETARY RILEY: Well, as was said by the President and
both of us, it is a two-sided coin. And certainly, if it's being
stretched on the other side, that also -- there should be clarifying
information in that regard also. So it's a two-sided situation. The
establishment cause and the religious freedom cause must be taken, as
the President said, as two pillars there for you to deal with both of
them. So it's a good question because that's very true. If it's
being violated on the other side, hopefully, this kind of directive
would be helpful.
Thank you.
END
1:56 P.M. EDT
The Washington Times
*
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995
Pro-religion proposal sparks
heated debate in New York
Some see First Amendment clauses in direct conflict
By Liz Trotta
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
THE RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
NEW YORK — Members of a
AMENDMENT
U.S. House Judiciary subcommit-
This text of the amendment, which drafters say is "not carved in
tee got a taste of urban guerrilla
stone," is the latest proposal for amending the Bill of Rights of the
warfare yesterday as friends and
Constitution.
foes of the proposed Religious
In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge
Equality Amendment, passionate
God according to the dictates of conscience;
in defining the limits of personal
Section I. Neither the United States nor any state shall abridge the
belief, confronted one another in
freedom of any persons or group, including students in public schools,
hearing rooms, hallways, and even
to engage in prayer or other religious expression in circumstances in
on the sidewalks of New York.
which expression of a nonreligious character would be permitted, nor
The constitutional amendment
deny benefits to or otherwise discriminate against any person or group
would protect religious freedom
on account of the religious character of their speech, ideas,
by preventing government from
motivations, or identity.
blocking all prayer in public
Section II. Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to forbid
schools or denying "benefits to or
the United States or any state to give public or ceremonial
otherwise discriminate against
accommodation to the religious heritage, beliefs, or traditions of its
any person or group on account of
people.
the religious character of their
Section III. The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms under the
speech, ideas, motivations, or
First Amendment or under this amendment shall not constitute an
identity."
establishment of religion.
New York's top Catholic official,
The Washington Times
Cardinal John O'Connor, and one
of the state's most prominent Jew-
ish leaders, Rabbi Emeritus Ar-
thur Hertzberg of Temple Em-
manuel, were among those who
testified before the panel.
"This is a tricky business," Car-
dinal O'Connor said. "All I know is
that we need help to free religion
to do its job." He catalogued the
health and educational services
the archdiocese provides to the
city, implying that cooperation and
financial support are often denied
because of anti-Catholic bias.
He cited Fordham University's
recent request for a license to
build a new tower for its radio sta-
tion, which has broadcast for 47
years. The request, he said, was
turned down because of objections
to the inclusion of an hourlong
Catholic Mass once a week on the
program schedule.
Committee Chairman Henry J.
Cardinal O'Connor said "we need
Hyde, Illinois Republican, re-
Rep. Henry Hyde said the clauses
help to free religion to do its job."
ferred to the "tremendous contra-
are now in "mortal combat."
diction" of the courts in emphasiz-
ing one half of the religious
the building. The AJC opposes the
eral People for the American Way
clauses of the First Amendment,
amendment.
and had already dropped in on the
namely the no-establishment
"Maybe you could delay that un-
AJC briefing.
clause, to the disparagement of
the free-exercise clause.
til this one is over," suggested an
Rabbi Hertzberg, who opposes
irked Rabbi Schiller.
the amendment and wants to
These clauses, he said, designed
to complement each other, are now
"It's in progress now," said the
"keep the religion of the majority
retreating recruiter.
off the backs of the minority," re-
in "mortal combat," meaning to di-
called that as a child he had no
minished religious freedom.
William A. Donohue, president
choice but to listen to Christian
The fireworks started even be-
of the conservative Catholic
prayers in school. "I felt I was an
fore the panel sat as a group of
League, held still another news
American on suffrance, because
rabbis and Lou Sheldon, president
conference, where he said a mis-
the true American is a Christian."
of the Traditional Values Coalition,
taken reading of the First Amend-
Mr. Hyde said he doesn't feel
a key group behind the proposed
ment has relegated religious
constitutional amendment, were
that way when he sees the Star of
speech to second-class status. He
talking to reporters outside the
David. "It seems to me dis-
cited cases where football coaches
hearing.
criminators of the free-exercise
are not allowed to call for prayers
clause are not tolerant of diver-
Rabbi Mayer Schiller, who fa-
in a huddle.
sity," he said.
vors the amendment, was ex-
At the hearing, an animated au-
Yesterday's hearing was the
plaining why he thought "the pub-
dience of about 200 was divided
fourth in a series of seven. The
lic forum had turned against God."
between tie-wearing supporters
next one is scheduled in Oklahoma
A public-relations man appeared,
from religious groups and a deter-
City on Friday, to be followed by
trying to lure the press into a news
mined assembly of middle-aged
another in Los Angeles next Mon-
conference with the American
women carrying large notebooks.
day. No date has been set for the
Jewish Committee elsewhere in
They said they were from the lib-
final one in Washington, D.C.
The Washington Times
* TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995
secretary said he was in meet-
ings all day.
But city activists said they had
a host of topics they would like to
talk to the board about, if given
the chance, from the need for
openness in the board's oper-
ations to the city's budget.
Marilyn Groves, co-convenor
of a citywide group advocating
cleaner streets and one of the
few who has signed up to speak,
said her topic would be trash
an easier problem to tackle than
social issues such as crime,
crumbling public housing and
foster care, she said.
Activists opposed to the cre-
ation of the board questioned
whether Thursday's meeting
will be more than a staged show
with a predetermined outcome.
"This is meant to take us
through the motions of a public
meeting," said the Rev. Graylan
Ellis-Hagler of Plymouth Con-
gregational Church and a mem-
ber of the Coalition for Political
and Financial Accountability.
read them the charges. She re-
Clinton
leased Mr. Rapp to a halfway
house and ordered Mr. Oliver
held in jail to undergo a psycho-
threat
logical examination to deter-
mine if he is able to assist his
lawyer in his defense. Both men
ers to approve or veto city bud-
gets and recommend and ulti-
mately force - management
changes affecting everything
from employee benefits to priva-
A published report said the
were ordered to reappear in
Control panel's 1st public meeting
spurs over 100 calls to board office
board is likely to reject the city's
1996 budget proposal. John W.
Hill Jr., the board's executive di-
rector and a former GAO auditor
who has studied the city for more
than a year, has said the city has
not cut its budget as ordered by
Congress, continues to over-
spend and does not need more
Mr. Hill, board Chairman An-
drew Brimmer and other board
members could not be reached
for comment. Mr. Brimmer's
not first
court Friday for a preliminary
and detention hearing.
If convicted, Mr. Oliver faces
five years in prison on the
for suspect
threats charge. Both men face a
mandatory five years in prison if
convicted on the drug charge.
According to court records, Mr.
tization.
money.
By Kristan Metzler
Rapp and Mr. Oliver were hand-
HE WASHINGTON TIMES
cuffed in the house when Mr.
Rapp asked his roommate why
Barry Oliver, whose threats
he wanted to kill the president.
against the president turned into
"Oliver responded that he
a marijuana bust at his Adams
wanted to because 'Clinton had
Morgan house Sunday, was
threatened to kill me,' accord-
auditorium at the Agriculture
Department.
Admission to the 9 a.m. meet-
ing is on a first come, first
served basis, and all attendees
must present photo identifica-
tion. They must register at the
Wing 4 entrance of the depart-
ment's South Building at 14th
Street and Independence Avenue
Congress created the D.C. Fi-
nancial Reponsibility and Man-
agement Assistance Authority
commonly called the financial
control board to help the city
The GAO has questioned the
$722 million deficit figure esti-
mated by Mr. Barry, saying the
city overstated the problem by
The board has sweeping pow-
charged with making threats
ing to court documents.
against D.C. police 2½ years ago,
After his arrest, Mr. Oliver
when he said he planted a bomb
told law-enforcement authorities
at a police station, D.C. Superior
that the CIA had illegal real es-
with its fiscal crisis.
more than one-third.
Court records show.
tate dealings in the District, said
Mr. Oliver, 44, called a Bell At-
Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter
lantic operator about 5 a.m. Sun-
White who will prosecute the
day and began a discussion be-
case.
fore the operator transferred the
Mr. Oliver referred to the CIA
call to a 911 operator.
after his arrest in 1993. when on
SW.
During the 25-minute conver-
Jan. 22 he called the 2nd District
sation, Mr. Oliver threatened to
police station and said he had
"cut the president of the United
planted a bomb, according to Su-
States from ear to ear two times
perior Court records.
and threatened to go to the White
He said: "The 2nd District is
House and kil him," according to
going down because I planted a
Beverly Lofton said.
The flurry of activity comes
five days before the board is to
submit its recommendations on
the city's fiscal 1996 budget to
Congress, President Clinton,
Mayor Marion Barry and the
D.C. Council. Thursday's meet-
ing the first public discussion
to be held by the board's five
unpaid members comes just
two days before those recom-
mendations are due.
Today is the deadline for those
wanting to testify to submit a
written summary of their speech
to the board. The board will se-
lect from the summaries who
will speak during the 90 minutes
bomb. Come and get it. I'll have
set aside for public testimony.
Board officials are expecting
a large crowd and have sched-
uled the meeting in a 400-seat
court documents.
Law-enforcement authorities
a .357 magnum waiting for you,"
traced the call to a house in the
according to the records.
1800 block of Monroe Street NW.
He talked about a CIA plot to
Metropolitan Police officers and
destroy him and that he was with
U.S. Secret Service agents ar-
the British intelligence agency,
rived at the four-story house and
according to court records.
found more than 920 marijuana
A Superior Court judge or-
plants, about 20 pounds of dried
dered him into the psychiatric
marijuana, 12 blotters of LSD
division of pretrial services di-
and drug paraphrenalia, accord-
version program, which he suc-
ing to court records in the U.S.
cessfully completed and the
District Court.
charges were dropped, accord-
Callers jammed the phone
informa-
Mr. Oliver was charged with
ing to court records.
making threats on the president
On Feb. 22, Mr. Oliver pleaded
and possession with intent to dis-
guilty to attempted possession of
By Lisa Nevans
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
lines at the D.C. financial control
board's temporary office yester-
day, with more than 100 callers
requesting
hours
tion about the board's first public
meeting, a board spokeswoman
But only a handful asked to ad-
dress the board because few peo-
ple knew the board was accept-
ing public comment at the
daylong meeting Thursday, com-
munity activists said.
Meanwhile, School Superin-
tendent Franklin Smith and Ver-
non Hawkins, acting director of
the city's human services
agency, were among four D.C. of-
ficials who testified in a closed
meeting with the board and 25 to
50 onlookers yesterday at the
General Accounting Office
(GAO), school and control board
spokeswomen said. Mr. Smith
spoke about the school budget
and measuring school perform-
ance, schools spokeswoman
tribute marijuana, both felony
marijuana and is on unsuper-
charges. His roommate James
vised probation. Mr. Rapp was
Rapp, 40, also was charged with
arrested in New Orleans on an
the drug offense.
unspecified misdemeanor
Both men appeared in District
charge and is on probation in
Court yesterday where Magis-
that case, according to the U.S.
trate Judge Deborah Robinson
Attorney's Office.
two
in
said.
STATEMENT OF COLLETION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AMITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE SECRETARY
STATEMENT BY SECRETARY RILEY ON AGUILAR V. FELTON
In 1985, the Supreme Court held in Aquilar V. Felton that it is
unconstitutional for public school personnel to provide instruction
in religiously-affiliated private schools under Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This decision has caused
continuing problems in the Title I program for both public and
private school children who need extra help. I therefore support
reconsideration of the Felton decision in an appropriate case. In
my opinion, Felton does not advance the progress of education or
pass the test of good common sense. At a time when school budgets
are under increased scrutiny, Felton places an additional undue
burden on them.
The Felton decision has had a significant negative impact on Title
I services for the neediest children in both public and private
schools. Importantly, the costs of compliance with Felton are
taken off the top of the school district's total Title I
allocation, prior to providing funds for comparable instructional
services for public and private school children. Therefore,
compliance with Felton reduces the amount of Title I funds
available for public school children, as well as private school
children. Also, in the years immediately following the decision,
there was a dramatic decrease in the number of private school
children participating in the Title I program. Although the number
has increased in subsequent years, the underlying problems caused
by the Felton decision continue. Instead of having Title I
services in their own school buildings, as public school children
generally have, religious school children must go to another
location to receive instruction from a teacher. This creates not
only logistical problems, but significantly increases costs (for
such things as transportation or the purchase or rental of mobile
vans) which adversely affects both public and private school
children. I believe we must make more effective use of Title I
dollars to support our neediest students in both public and private
schools. Felton stands in the way of our doing SO.
Based on a 1989 study by the General Accounting Office, we estimate
that school districts have expended hundreds of millions of dollars
on non-instructional costs in order to comply with Felton. For
example, for the 1995-96 school year, New York city alone is
budgeting $16 million for these costs. It is estimated that $10
million of this amount will come from a special Title I
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202-0100
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation
STATEMENT BY SECRETARY RILEY - PAGE TWO
appropriation, but the remaining $6 million will have to come off
the top of New York City's regular Title I grant. This $6 million
could be used to serve 5600 additional needy students in both
public and private schools, or alternatively to improve services
for the thousands of children already being served under Title I in
New York city. However, until Felton is reconsidered, New York
city and other school districts must continue to comply with that
decision.
AS demonstrated by the facts of the original case, we believe that
Title I services can be provided in private schools without aiding
religion or creating excessive entanglement between government and
religion. This Department has also supported and defended in
litigation a variety of alternative arrangements for providing
Title I services for private school children, including providing
computer-assisted instruction in private schools and, in
appropriate circumstances, parking mobile vans on or near private
school property. There has been criticism, however, that even the
alternative arrangements that have developed as a result of
Felton are not the most educationally effective methods for
providing Title I services. In addition, the Felton decision at
times has caused unnecessary tension between public and private
school officials concerning how and where Title I services should
be provided for private school children.
In light of these continuing problems, I support efforts to have
the Felton decision reconsidered in an appropriate case.
file Religion /Schols prayer
Billy WeBSTeR
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
1/27/95
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1995
MR. PRESIDENT:
The attached memo from Joel Klein, George,
Galston, Melanne and Steve Neuwirth, reports
that eight major religious organizations have
agreed on a: set of principles consistent
with your own views -- governing religious
expression in the schools.
These groups plan to hold a press conference
to announce their agreement on February 2 --
the day of the national prayer breakfast in
Washington.
The memo recommends that you invite these
organizations to the White House on: February
2, immediately after the prayer breakfast;
allow them to make their announcement here;
and then make or issue a statement praising
the announcement.
Leon concurs. Billy Webster has no
objection.
Agree
Disagree
Discuss
/
John Podesta for
Todd
Stern
406 it's is wing (ney mom only say may) 2 Gir, should what teach should an #, #14 14 80g. 3 Has
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
1/27/95
January 20, 1995
95 JAN 20 P2:45
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
LEON PANETTA
FROM:
JOEL KLEIN YK
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
BILL GALSTON
MELANNE VERVEER
STEVE NEUWIRTH
SUBJECT:
RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
We recently met with representatives from eight major
religious organizations representing a broad spectrum of views.
We learned that these and other organizations have reached
agreement on a set of principles governing religious expression
in schools. We believe that these principles, summarized im the
attached list, are consistent with your views. These principles
reflect the extent to which current. law -- which is often
mischaracterized by Speaker Gingrich and others. -- actually
protects religious freedom in schools.
Moreover, the ability of these organizations to reach
agreement demonstrates that support of religious freedom can draw
our communities together, rather than tear them apart.
The religious organizations currently plan to hold a press
conference on February 2 -- the date of the national prayer
breakfast in Washington -- to announce their agreement. It is
our recommendation that the White House provide a forum for this
announcement. Specifically, we recommend that:
1. the leaders of these organizations be invited to meet
with you at the White House, preferably immediately
after the prayer breakfast;
2. the organizations then be permitted to announce their
agreement and speak to the press on the White House
grounds, perhaps in front of the West Wing; and
3.
you make or issue a statement praising the efforts of
these groups to reach common ground, reiterating your
support for RFRA and the Equal Access Act, and
recognizing the frustration so many Americans feel on
issues relating to religion in our schools.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
DISCUSS
SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT ON RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1.
Students, individually or in groups, can engage in private, non-
disruptive prayer and discussion of religion.
2.
Teachers and school administrators may not encourage or solicit student
religious or anti-religious activity.
3.
While public schools can teach about religion -- e.g., comparative
religion, the history of religion, etc. -- they may not teach religion
itself.
4.
While "creationism" can be discussed in comparative religion or social
studies classes, schools must not teach as scientific fact any religious
doctrine of a supernatural creator, including "creationism." At the
same time, teachers may not ridicule any religious doctrine of origins.
5.
Student religious speech in the form of reports, homework and artwork is
constitutionally protected.
6.
Some other forms of public religious expression in the classroom are
also protected.
7.
Students may distribute religious literature to their school-mates,
subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
8.
Outsiders may not distribute religious literature in the classroom.
Courts have not yet addressed whether outside groups can distribute
religious literature in common areas of public schools if other
community groups are permitted to distribute secular publications.
91
Students: may participate in-religious events -- e.g., at a flagpole
before or after school.
10.
Students may attempt, in non-harassing ways, to persuade their peers
about religious topics.
11. The Equal Access Act should be enforced.
12.
While public schools may not observe holidays as religious events, those
schools may teach about religious holidays and celebrate the secular
aspects of those holidays.
13.
Schools have substantial discretion to excuse individual students from
lessons that are objectionable to the students on the basis of religion.
14.
Schools may teach civic virtues -- such as honesty, civility, tolerance
and hard work -- so long as these virtues are not taught as religious
tenets. At the same time, the fact that religions also teach these
values does not make it unlawful to teach them in school.
15.
Students may wear religious attire, and religious messages on shirts or
other clothing items may not be singled out for suppression.
16.
Schools have the discretion to permit students to participate in off-
premises religious instruction during the school day, so long as the
schools do not encourage or discourage participation.
Tes 65 BG
file febore
peager
CHRISTIAN
4208 Evergreen Lane, Suite 222
LEGAL
A4
Annandale, VA 22003-3264
(703) 642-1070
SOCIETY
MV
FAX (703) 642-1075
DETERMINED TO BE AN
From JK
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
CONFIDENTIAL
INITIALS: Jr DATE: 7/17/2014
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Stephen Neuwirth, Esquire
White House Office of Legal Counsel
FROM:
Steven T. McFarland, Director
Center for Law and Religious Freedom
Christian Legal Society
DATE:
January 19, 1995
RE:
Recommendations for Administration Action in Religious
Liberty Matters
This memo suggests a position for the Administration in the
school prayer maelstrom that would send positive messages to the
born-again Christian community without requiring new legislation or
endorsement of a constitutional amendment. We also suggest reasons
why a moment of silence law would be ill-advised at this time.
The recent national focus on a school prayer amendment raises
the visibility of religious liberty, particularly its restraint on
public school campuses. This is an ideal opportunity for the
President to use his "bully pulpit" to disabuse school
administrators, government lawyers, and the general populace on all
sides of the controversy surrounding religion in the schools, as to
what the law already protects and permits. The President can also
assure the religious community that the Justice Department will
monitor and, when necessary, intervene in cases in which the Equal
Access Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and other
applicable federal law should be brought to bear to accomplish
their broad remedial purposes.
The Christian Legal Society (CLS) and others will support a
Constitutional Amendment. If the Administration chooses not to,
nevertheless it may effectively clear the air as to the current
status of the law so that any debate over a Constitutional
Amendment is an informed one based upon real points of
disagreement, not horror stories that simply distort how bad the
situation really is. CLS believes that such an education of the
Equipping For Service
Memo to: Stephen Neuwirth, Esquire
January 19, 1995
Page Two
public, and especially of educators, will be an invaluable cure and
substitute for much litigation and rhetoric, regardless of whether
it results in an amendment or enactment of legislation.
Specifically, we would urge the President to: acknowledge
that the pendulum has swung too far toward sanitizing public
schools of religious expression by anyone, anywhere, anytime;
then educate the public on the guarantees of the Equal Access Act,
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the availability of school
policies permitting a moment of silence, the expression of
religious opinions in class, and the release of students for off-
campus religious instruction at local houses of worship. These are
federal laws or rulings, that are not universally understood or
used, and should be the subject of Justice Department enforcement
and attention with the same vigor as the Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances Act.
a. Vocalize the public frustration. It would be important
for the President to share that he agrees with millions of
evangelicals and other religious citizens, especially parents, that
the pendulum has swung too far toward a sanitized campus from the
days before 1962 when teachers led religious litany in the
classroom. For too long now, well intentioned but misinformed
educators have unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) enforced a
policy of "if it's religious, keep it out" -- regardless who is
expressing the religious thought or where. The President has
frequently quoted Professor Stephen L. Carter's book The Culture of
Disbelief on this very point. Hearing the President express
empathy for this pent up frustration among believers would be akin
to lancing a boil, provided it is followed by specific and
unambiguous commitment of the Justice Department to enforcement of
federal law currently protecting or permitting a broader scope of
student religious expression.
b. Educate parents and educators. The public needs to hear
from the President that religion should not be suppressed at public
schools. School districts may constitutionally enact a moment of
silence. Students may pray individually almost any time during the
school day and in groups outside of class. Curriculum can and
should include a description of the role of religion and
religiously inspired persons in history, literature, the arts,
sciences and virtually every other subject.
We recommend that the President especially highlight two
statutes the evangelical and religious community consider to be the
most important of this century: the Equal Access Act and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Memo to: Stephen Neuwirth, Esquire
January 19, 1995
Page Three
We urge the President to remind America that, for over ten
years, the Equal Access Act has guaranteed that students may meet
for student-led prayer and Scripture study before or after class if
any other student club is permitted to meet at that time. They
need to hear the President state that he has directed the Attorney
General to form a task force to enforce the Equal Access Act
against any recalcitrant school district.
Similarly, the President can certainly take credit for
supporting and signing RFRA, and ought to explain that it is the
tool with which religious parents may "opt out" their child from an
objectionable portion of school curriculum or reading assignment.
The President can certainly fairly say that generally such an
objection should be accommodated, with the student given an
alternative assignment. This is the command of RFRA, which the
President supported and signed fourteen months ago. Again,
especially if the President is going to be calling for federal
marshals to protect abortion clinics, the evangelical community
wants to hear that the Attorney General takes just as seriously her
responsibility to protect the right of parents under RFRA to direct
the education of their children.
Finally, another tool that has been around much longer but
used far too infrequently by the religious community is released
time religious education. The President could remind the religious
community that for over 45 years every school has been free to let
local churches, mosques and synagogues organize off-campus released
time religious instruction. Many evangelicals, including CLS,
would laud the President if he were to chide believers on their
expectation that the government should be responsible for
supplementing the religious training of their children. "Ask not
what the government can do to indoctrinate the children of America;
rather ask what you and your church are willing to do with the
rights we already have." With the emphasis on parental rights,
downsizing government, and promoting unadulterated religious
teaching by private individuals, this point should certainly strike
a chord with millions.
Why a moment of silence statute would be too little, too late.
A statute permitting or mandating a moment of silence would be
insufficient to divert or reduce much of the wind velocity
circulating in and through the religious community, for a number of
reasons.
1.
"Born again citizens", especially parents, are well aware
of and fed up with the discrimination they face against
the expression of their faith in public schools. It
seems to us a double standard. Secularists and even
anti-religious viewpoints certainly do not have to remain
Memo to: Stephen Neuwirth, Esquire
January 19, 1995
Page Four
silent. In presenting only one theory of origins in
biology class, in teaching the acceptability of
homosexuality in "family life education" courses, in
presenting how to use contraceptives in health education,
the secularist hardly needs to remain silent. Meanwhile,
the fundamentalist cannot have even a moment of vocal
prayer either in the classroom or once in twelve years at
a graduation ceremony. Thus, I believe that a moment of
silence statute would be viewed as symbolic tokenism and
would only emphasize the unequal playing field as far as
classroom religious expression is concerned.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wallace V. Jaffree
creates a substantial risk that the Court would strike
such a statute, especially because it would be impossible
to keep 535 MC's from telling the folks at home on C-Span
that this is a vote for prayer and returning God to the
classroom. For those who are confident that such a
statute could survive Establishment Clause scrutiny, then
this statute does not give us anything we do not already
have. In other words, the President will not get many
accolades for gift-wrapping something that already
belongs to the recipient.
3. None of the House leadership wants a moment of silence
(as opposed to vocal classroom prayer) and the Senate
Republican leadership has been cool to any prayer
amendment whatsoever. Hence, introduction of such a
statute would likely be viewed as a token offered by the
President with full knowledge that it was dead on
arrival, thereby calling into question the sincerity of
the President's desire to really give anything to the
religious conservative.
4.
Furthermore, a moment of silence statute, if it were
mandatory, would inflame federalist and states rights
passions. School districts are the quintessential
institutions of representative democracy in most
communities. It could be viewed as Washington, D.C.,
dictating policy to every school district in the nation.
Criticism, however, would not be equally applicable to a
Constitutional Amendment; with its requirement of 38
state legislatures' ratification, an amendment is perhaps
democratic decision-making at its best. A mandatory
Memo to: Stephen Neuwirth, Esquire
January 19, 1995
Page Five
moment 1 of silence statute might be Big Brother at its
worst.
5.
The evangelical community is deeply concerned about the
entire school day, not just about the first minute.
According to the Christian Coalition's exit polls, the
born-again voter was the single biggest voting bloc in
November (over one third of those they interviewed).
They are informed, they vote, and they will not be easily
placated with tokens or symbolic gestures by the
President, no matter how well-intentioned.
For these reasons, we strongly urge the President to call for
the protection and exercise of existing rights of student religious
expression on campus, educating the public about them in the
process and committing his Administration to their vigorous
enforcement.
Thank you for considering our views on this important matter.
1
CLS drafted and was intimately involved in the lobbying for
both the EAA and RFRA, because they restored free speech and free
exercise rights guaranteed in our Constitution. In contrast, a
moment of silence is permissible, but not a right, under the First
Amendment.
THE
U. S. Department of Justice
file
School
Office of Legal Counsel
person
Office of the
Washington, D.C. 20530
Assistant Attorney General
February 23, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR
JANET RENO
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ABNER J. MIKVA
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
From: Walter Dellinger
Re: School Prayer Issues
This memorandum sets forth some preliminary views regarding the status of prayer
and other religious speech in public schools. First, the memorandum outlines briefly what
we understand to be the legal principles that govern this area. Second, the memorandum
describes a possible legislative response to recent calls for action, in the form of amendments
to the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074.
A. Legal Premises
The following legal premises guide our response to the current debate over prayer and
religious speech in public schools. Putting aside the possibility of a constitutional
amendment, these principles set the boundaries for congressional action in the area. In our
view, they leave significant room for additional legislative intervention.
Official prayer is prohibited. As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, a school
may not "persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise." Lee v.
Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2661 (1992). A state's use of its public school system to
encourage recitation of prayer is a "practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment
Clause." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424 (1962). Accordingly, public schools may not
hold official prayer exercises.
We think this basic principle rests on very strong ground and merits vigorous defense.
It is difficult to improve on the formulation of Justice Black, writing for the Court in Engel:
[T]he constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of
religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of
government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people
to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
Id. at 425. The Establishment Clause prohibition on government sponsorship of official
prayer exercises is necessary to protect the rights of religious minorities and, for religious
believers and nonbelievers alike, "that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the
mark of a free people." Weisman, 112 S. Ct. at 2658. It also is intended to protect religion
itself, as against the "degrad[ation]" that tends to follow from "a union of government and
religion." See Engel, 370 U.S. at 431.
At a minimum, this principle prohibits school or other government officials from
leading or directing students in prayer as part of a school's curricular activities. See
Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963). This prohibition applies
regardless of whether students may be excused from the prayer session, see id. at 224-25;
Engel, 370 U.S. at 430, and it applies as well when state officials invite a private party to
lead the prayers, see Weisman, 112 S. Ct. at 2655. Moreover, it is clear that at least some
important school functions that occur outside the normal school day, such as graduations, are
among the school activities at which official prayer is impermissible. See id., 112 S. Ct. at
2659-60.
This basic prohibition on official school prayer renders legally questionable any
organized prayer at official school functions like graduations, even when the prayer is
directed and led by students or private parties. For the nonadhering student, whose presence
is in every "real sense" compelled, id. at 2659, the school's involvement in the function as a
whole is likely to exert pressure to participate in all of the function's component parts. Cf.
id. at 2658 (discussing "subtle coercive pressure" exerted by school control of graduation
ceremony itself). While it may be permissible for the valedictorian to offer her own religious
thoughts, determination by school officials that there will be a prayer, or delegation by
school officials of that decision to a collective student referendum, may violate the principle
against officially organized prayers. Though the question is not free from doubt, and its
resolution may in some cases turn upon particular factual nuances, we think that in the end
appellate courts are likely to conclude that organized prayer at high school graduations
violates the Establishment Clause. See Harris V. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 241, No. 93-35839,
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 32646 (9th Cir. June 6, 1994) (student-organized graduation prayer
violates Establishment Clause); but see Jones V. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 977 F.2d 963
(5th Cir. 1992) (student-organized graduation prayer does not violate Establishment Clause),
cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2950 (1993).
2
Private prayer is permitted. By contrast, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit
prayer in schools under circumstances which neither convey endorsement of religion by the
state nor exert pressure to participate upon nonadhering students. See Westside Community
Bd. of Educ. V. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250-51 (1990) (plurality opinion) (equal access to
school facilities for student-initiated religious groups creates "little if any risk of official state
endorsement or coercion").
Indeed, the Supreme Court already has made clear that purely voluntary, student-
initiated religious meetings may be held at public universities and secondary schools
consistent with the Establishment Clause. See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 270-75
(1981) (public university); Mergens, 496 U.S. at 247-53. This is so even if the meetings in
question involve actual religious worship exercises. Widmar, 454 U.S. at 265, 271 n.9;
Mergens, 496 U.S. at 232. Congress has codified the right of student-initiated religious
clubs to meet at secondary schools on the same basis as other student clubs in the Equal
Access Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074.
Moreover, under the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court,
students at all public schools may, in appropriate circumstances, engage in silent prayer
during the school day. Cf. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 57-58 n.45, 59 (1985)
(discussing ability of students to pray silently at school even in absence of legislation so
providing). By the same token, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit discussion among
students about religion under appropriate circumstances.
A moment of silence is likely permitted. From the principles described above, it
follows that a truly neutral moment of silence, offering an opportunity for private prayer,
does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause. To the contrary, the Supreme Court
suggested very strongly in Jaffree that such a moment of silence would be permissible. See
id. at 59 ("merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an
appropriate moment of silence" distinguished from promotion of prayer); id. at 62 (Powell,
J., concurring); id. at 76 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
The Court in Jaffree, to be sure, invalidated the particular moment of silence law
before it on the grounds that the statute was enacted for the "sole purpose of expressing the
State's endorsement of prayer activities," id. at 60, and hence lacked the requisite "secular
purpose" under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). In reaching this conclusion, the
Court relied in part on expressions of motivation by the sponsor of the bill, Jaffree, 472 U.S.
at 56-57, and in part on the fact that the law singled out in its text "voluntary prayer" as a
"favored practice," id. at 60 (law establishes period of silence for "meditation or voluntary
prayer"). Later case law, however, suggests that emphasis on the motives of legislators is
misplaced, and that a moment of silence statute neutral as to religion on its face and in
application would not be rendered unconstitutional by the fact that "some legislators were
motivated by a conviction that religious [thought] in particular was valuable and worthy of
protection." See Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248-49 (plurality opinion) (Equal Access Act meets
- 3 -
"secular purpose" standard because it protects secular as well as religious speech, regardless
of legislative motivation).
What would render a facially neutral moment of silence law impermissible is any
effort by school or other state officials applying the law to "convey the message that children
should use the moment of silence for prayer." Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 73 (O'Connor, J.,
concurring in the judgment). Any moment of silence law must be implemented by school
officials in a manner that conveys neither endorsement nor disparagement of religion.
Speech rights are limited in the school setting. The Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment protects "personal intercommunication among the students" on school premises.
See Tinker V. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1969). At the
same time, schools maintain the right to control the content of their curricula, and to set
standards for student speech in official, school-sponsored activities and gatherings. See
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 270-73 (1988) (school newspaper);
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683-86 (1986) (school assembly). With
respect to school-sponsored, rather than purely personal, expressive activities, schools may
"exercis[e] editorial control over the style and content of student speech" so long as their
actions are "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at
273; see also Fraser, 478 U.S. at 685 (school may impose sanctions for vulgar speech that
"undermine[s] the school's basic educational mission").
Congress can address discrimination against religious speech in public schools.
Finally, we think it clear that Congress has the authority to pass legislation addressing
discrimination by public school officials against student religious speech.
As a threshold matter, Congress could determine that school officials currently are
engaging in unwarranted discrimination against personal religious speech by students. Such
discrimination may well be the product of sincere but misguided efforts to conform to
sometimes ill-defined Establishment Clause requirements. Whatever the cause, however,
there appears to be growing concern that the attitude of school officials toward religious
speech is having a chilling effect on the religious expression of students. See generally
Christina Engstrom Martin, Note, Student-Initiated Religious Expression after Mergens and
Weisman, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1565 (1994) (discussing examples).¹
The Equal Access Act, upheld by the Supreme Court in Mergens, is precedent for
legislation "intended to address [such] perceived widespread discrimination against religious
speech in public schools." Mergens, 496 U.S. at 239. It is clear from Mergens that
Congress, pursuant to its Spending Clause power, may impose obligations regarding
protection of religious speech on public schools as a condition of receiving federal financial
I
See also Letter from Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel, The American Center for Law & Justice, to Janet
Reno, Attorney General, and Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, re: Patterns of Violations of the Equal
Access Act (Feb. 15, 1994) ["Sekulow Letter"].
- 4 -
assistance. Id. at 241. At the same time, however, it was important to the Court in
Mergens that the Equal Access Act does not purport to dictate the contents of school
curricula, but rather leaves school districts with "their traditional latitude to determine
appropriate subjects of instruction." Id. at 240-41 (citing Hazelwood). Finally, as discussed
above, Mergens establishes that the legal prospects of such legislation are improved
significantly if it is facially neutral, extending to secular as well as to religious speech. Id. at
248-49 (plurality opinion).
B. Possible Legislation
Whether the Administration should propose legislation addressing prayer and religious
speech in public schools is, of course, a question with important policy dimensions deserving
of careful study. As a legal matter, however, we think it clear that the principles outlined
above permit significant legislative action in this area.
If legislation is deemed advisable, then we suggest that it might appropriately take the
form of amendments to the Equal Access Act. Such legislation would have two primary
virtues. First, it would call attention to the existence of a statute that itself addresses many
of the perceived problems in this area. Second, amendments to the Equal Access Act could
take advantage of the carefully drafted general provisions that already are a part of that
statute.
We recognize that extension of the equal access principle on which the current Act
rests may in practice raise significant concerns. However unobjectionable the principle in
theory, there may be circumstances in which what is intended as equal treatment is
experienced by school children as endorsement or, in the words of Justice Marshall, in
which "the failure of a school to stand apart from religious speech can convey a message that
the school endorses rather than merely tolerates that speech." Mergens, 496 U.S. at 264
(Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment). It is our view that the applications of the equal
access principle discussed here are on their face constitutionally permissible. However, we
do not doubt that their implementation must be monitored closely to avoid specific outcomes
that are problematic from both a legal and a policy perspective:
[V]igilance must extend to our monitoring of the actual effects of an "equal
access" policy. If public schools are perceived as conferring the imprimatur of
the State on religious doctrine or practice as a result of such a policy, the
nominally "neutral" character of the policy will not save it from running afoul
of the Establishment Clause. Id.
a. The Equal Access Act
A copy of the Equal Access Act, which is quite short, is attached to this
memorandum. Very briefly, the Equal Access Act provides that secondary schools receiving
federal funds may not discriminate in access to a "limited open forum" for student-initiated
- 5 -
meetings on the basis of the "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" of the
speech at such meetings. 20 U.S.C. § 4071(a). A school has a "limited open forum" if it
allows one or more "noncurriculum related" student group to meet on school premises during
"noninstructional time." Id. § 4071(b). In granting a "fair opportunity" for student
meetings, a school must provide, inter alia, that meetings are voluntary and student-initiated;
that there is no school sponsorship of meetings; and that meetings do not "materially and
substantially" interfere with the educational activities of the school. Id. § 4071(c).
A definitional section of the Act defines "noninstructional time" as time set aside by
the school before or after actual classroom instruction; "meeting" to include those activities
generally permitted in the limited open forum; and "sponsorship" to include "promoting,
leading, or participating" in a meeting. Id. § 4072. General qualifiers provide that nothing
in the Act shall be construed to authorize school "influence" over the content of any religious
activity or the expenditure of public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing space. Id.
§ 4071(d). The authority of schools to maintain discipline and student well-being is
expressly preserved. Id. § 4071(f). Finally, the Act creates no express remedies, and
provides that denial of federal funds to schools is not authorized. Id. § 4071(e).
b. Possible Amendments
1. Lunch-time and recess covered. The question has arisen under the Act whether a
school creates a limited open forum, triggering equal access rights, when it allows students to
meet during their lunch period. The United States has taken the position that the Act does
apply in such circumstances.² To clarify this point, the Act's definition of "noninstructional
time" might be amended to include "time set aside by the school before, after, or in between
actual classroom instruction." Arguably, the risk of peer pressure increases if student
religious meetings are held during the school day, when nonconforming students are
necessarily present. Nevertheless, so long as no classroom time is involved, there is "little if
any risk of official state endorsement or coercion." Mergens, 496 U.S. at 251 (plurality
opinion).
2. Prayer services and worship exercises covered. Some school districts may have
read the Equal Access Act narrowly and concluded (erroneously in our view) that the Act
permits religious groups to hold "meetings" but that the Establishment Clause would prohibit
prayers from being recited or worship services held at such meetings. To clarify that such
prayer meetings, as well as other worship services, may be protected by the Act, the
definition of "meeting" might be amended by adding at the end a new sentence: "A meeting
may include a prayer service, Bible reading, or other worship exercise."
One area of controversy has been over what is commonly known as "flagpole"
prayer, a nationwide Christian prayer exercise in which participating students gather around
2 Ceniceros V. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 9th Cir. No. 94-55257 (argument pending).
- 6 -
school flagpoles to pray before each school day.³ The amendment proposed here would
make clear that such gatherings are not excluded from the scope of the statute on the grounds
that they involve a prayer service. Whether such activities qualify as protected "meetings"
under § 4072(3) would continue to turn on whether similar gatherings generally "are
permitted under a school's limited open forum" -- that is, whether other noncurriculum
related student groups are given access to comparable sites at the school.
3. Fair opportunity criteria. There have been reports that schools sometimes deny
student religious groups the same access as other groups to the means of publicizing their
meetings, as by use of the school public address system.4 In our view, such denials, if they
indeed have occurred, very likely violate § 4071(a)'s mandate that student groups be
provided "equal access" to and a "fair opportunity" to use a school's limited open forum: if
a school generally opens its public address system to announcements concerning events that
are not school sponsored or approved, then equal access would appear to require that
announcements concerning the activities of student religious groups also be permitted. To
clarify this point, § 4071(c)'s list of "fair opportunity criteria" might be amended by adding a
requirement that "students initiating meetings covered under this section are not denied
access to means of publicizing their meetings on the basis of the religious, political,
philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings."
4. Religious literature permitted in otherwise available forum. Students have
advanced, unsuccessfully, claims that the distribution of religious literature may be deemed a
"meeting" for purposes of the Equal Access Act, and hence protected by the statute against
discriminatory suppression.⁵ We agree with the courts that the Act does not now cover
distribution of literature. The principles that underlie the Act, however, might well support a
prohibition on discrimination in this context, as well. At least with respect to material that is
not school-sponsored, see Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273, and as applied to secondary school
students, who are "mature enough
...
to understand that a school does not endorse or
support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis," " see Mergens,
496 U.S. at 250 (plurality opinion), a prohibition on discriminatory suppression of student-
distributed material might be appropriate.⁶
3 See Student-Initiated Religious Expression, supra, at 1573.
4 See Sekulow Letter at 2.
5
See Clark v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 806 F. Supp. 116, 120 (N.D. Tex. 1992); Thompson v.
Waynesboro Area Sch. Dist., 673 F. Supp. 1379, 1383-84 (M.D. Pa. 1987).
6
Indeed, such a prohibition, at least in some contexts, may be compelled in any event by the Free Speech
Clause of the First Amendment. See Clark, 806 F. Supp. at 120 (prohibition on distribution of religious
materials by public high school students violates Free Speech Clause); Thompson, 673 F. Supp. at 1388-92
(content-based restriction on distribution of Christian newspaper by junior high school students violates Free
Speech Clause).
- 7
To achieve this end, a new section closely paralleling § 4071 could be added to the
Equal Access Act. The new section might be drafted along the following lines:
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives federal
financial assistance and which has a limited open forum for distribution of
printed or other expressive material to deny equal access or a fair opportunity
to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to distribute material within
that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical,
or other content of the material in question.
For purposes of this section, a school has a limited open forum for distribution
of printed or other expressive material if it grants students the opportunity for
distribution on school premises during noninstructional time of material that is
unrelated to the school curriculum or to school activities.
Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who wish to
distribute printed or other expressive material within its limited open forum if
such school uniformly provides that--
(1) the distribution is student-initiated and the receipt of such material is
voluntary;
(2) there is no sponsorship of the material or the distribution by the school,
the government, or its agents or employees;
(3) the distribution does not materially and substantially interfere with the
orderly conduct of educational activities within the school, or undermine the
school's basic educational mission;⁷ and
(4) nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or participate in the
distribution.
Nothing in this provision shall preclude a school from adopting time, place and
manner restrictions that are applicable without regard to the content of the literature
being distributed.
5. Silent prayer and religious discussion permitted. There appear to have been
instances, some of them well-publicized, in which individual students have been prevented
7 Consistency with the school's "basic educational mission" is not now a requirement for student meetings
under the Act. Insertion of this standard, derived from the Bethel case, will preserve the authority of schools to
restrict the distribution of vulgar material.
- 8 -
from engaging in nondisruptive prayer or religious discussion at school.⁸ To codify the
right of students at both elementary and secondary schools to engage in such activities, two
new sections could be added to the Equal Access Act, as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any public elementary or secondary school which
receives federal financial assistance to punish a student for, or otherwise
prevent a student from, engaging in silent and nondisruptive activity during
noninstructional time on the basis of the religious, political, or philosophical
nature of such activity.
It shall be unlawful for any public elementary or secondary school which
receives federal financial assistance to punish a student for, or otherwise
prevent a student from, engaging in nondisruptive discussion with other
students who voluntarily participate in such discussion during noninstructional
time on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical or other content of
such discussion.
Of course, the general qualifiers already a part of the Equal Access Act, prohibiting school
influence over religious activity and preserving school disciplinary authority, would apply to
these new provisions, as well.
6. Moment of silence permitted. As discussed above, it is our view that truly
neutral moments of silence in public school are likely permissible under the Establishment
Clause. The Equal Access Act might be amended to codify that understanding, and to ensure
the necessary neutrality in implementation of moments of silence. A possible amendment is
sketched out below:
Any public elementary or secondary school receiving federal financial
assistance may provide for the observance by its students of a period of silent
and private contemplation or introspection during the school day.
If a school provides for a period of silent and private contemplation, then the
school may not:
Punish a student for, or otherwise prevent a student from, using
the period at his or her discretion to engage in the silent and
private contemplation or introspection of his or her choice.
Direct, control, conduct, or otherwise seek to influence the form
or content of silent and private student contemplation or
introspection.
8
See, e.g., Student-Initiated Religious Expression, supra, at 1575 & n.58.
- 9 -
7. Enforcement. As noted above, the Equal Access Act currently contains no
express provision for enforcement. At least one court has held that the Act creates rights
enforceable through an implied private cause of action,⁹ while other courts appear simply to
assume the existence of such an implied cause of action. Both to clarify this issue and to
signal support for vigorous enforcement of the Act, an amendment providing for an express
private cause of action might be appropriate.
9
See Student Coalition for Peace V. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 776 F.2d 431 (3d Cir. 1985).
- 10 -