EXTENSIONS of REMAR.KS PRAYER in the PUBLIC SCHOOL Lie Prayer Is, Thus, a Fight to Eradicate Tion, of Course, Is Better Than Nothing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
February 27, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 5305" To be lieutenants Thomas C. Howell III John J. Lenart William M. Hornick, John D. Busman Hugh B. Milburn John E. Colt David M. Chambers Stephen ........ Foster Jr. Roger J. DeVivo Dennis L. Graves Gerald W. McGill RichardS. Young Gregory R. Gillen Wayne A. Hoyle Robert M. Dixon James M. McClelland William B. Knight, Jr. Bruce W. Fisher William R. Daniels Robert L. Johnson Donald A. Drake John C. Veselenak Charles L. Hardt TedG.Hetu Lynn T. Gillman Raymond Louis Stephen M. Dunn Brent H. Traughber Roderick S. Patwell Michael Kawka Floyd Childress II Stewart McGee, Jr. Dale M. Hodges Michael J. Moorman To be lieutenants (junior grade) Charles N. Whitaker Donald W. Nostrant Lewis A. Lapine Philip D. Hitch Robert V. Smart Harvey L. Parry, Jr. Glenn H. Endrud Glenn M. Garte Gregory L. Miller Clarence W. Tignor Jonathan R. Carr Raymond W. Reilly Carl F. Peters II John H. Snooks Melvyn C. Grt:nthal Robert C. Roush James P. Travers Lawrence C. Hall To be ensigns William G. Pichel Douglas F. Jones William D. Neff Stephen E. Anderly Ronald L. Gester Robert W. Rushing John L. Robbins Kenneth W. Sigley V. Kenneth Leonard, John R. Annett Thomas M. Goforth Stephen C. Schwartz Dean R. Seidel Efrem R. Krisher Jr. Archibald C. Davis III Howard W. Herz Ronald J. Smolowitz Thomas W. Richards Gordon F. Tornberg Douglas A. Danner George C. Fuller William A. Viertel Lester B. Smith, Jr. EXTENSIONS OF REMAR.KS PRAYER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL lie prayer is, thus, a fight to eradicate tion, of course, is better than nothing. what we have called the fatal equation. A silent God is better than no God. But Much more is involved here than the since when can little children effectively HON. THOMAS J. MESKILL prayer alone. meditate? Why must God be quiet when OF CONNECTICUT Are we attacking the Court? He enters a school? Besides, silent medi IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES We attack the integrity neither of the tation by its very nature is individual. It Thursday, February 26, 1970 persons nor the institution of the Court does nothing to fulfill the purpose ac as then constituted. Simply, following in complished by the beautiful brotherhood Mr. MESKILL. Mr. Speaker, I would the steps of Abraham Lincoln and many of free prayer with which most of our like to devote a few minutes to the dis others, we seriously question the tradi school districts began the school day for cussion of public prayer. I believe a basic tional, historic, and legal validity of its many decades prior to the prayer-ban statement dealing with some of the most prayer-ban decisions. decisions. In any case, no substitute frequent objections to a public prayer What, then, is really at stake here? would do anything to remove the fa tal amendment will be useful to the debate First and foremost, return of the civil precedent of the prayer-ban decisions. on this subject. right of free public prayer to the class Those who use the argument from sub Mr. Speaker, what happened which rOQIID. Second, a process of creeping secu stitution to oppose a prayer amend makes a peoples' amendment for public larism which, unless now radically ment-and most substitutors do not sup prayer necessary? checked, could continue to wipe out one port an amendment-are, quite frankly, On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court by one all other practices of public rev ow· foes just as much as those who want said, without citing any precedent, that erence among us. Examples: attack on all religion removed from the public the following prayer freely recited by the Christmas prayer of the astronauts, classroom. They fail to see, honestly or pupils and teachers in New York State 1968, on the pageant of peace near the dishonestly, that by accepting a substi public schools was unconstitutional: White House, 1969, on other spiritual tute they are permitting a cancer to re Almighty God, we acknowledge our de exercises in public schools. By forc main and grow while applying salve to pendence upon Thee and we ask Thy bless ing the issue of free school prayer, the external wound. All effective substi ings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and we ask the Amf'rican people to re tutes are susceptible to attack from the our country. flect again on the role of God in same kind of intolerant few who secured On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court their midst, to examine the national con the prayer-ban in the first place. What banned the Lord's Prayer and Bible science again. This could be the critical is necessary is that a peoples' amendment reading from the schools of Maryland beginning in a great grassroots effort to for public prayer be written into the and Pennsylvania though in both in make America again a Nation on its Constitution and then further thought stances recitation had been by statute knees. Fourth, to reaffirm the democratic be given to the whole matter of religion free. process in which the will of the vast ma and morality in education, not vice The only effective way to reverse a jority of our people determines the law versa. precedent-making decision by the Su under which we shall live. Why should we tamper with the first preme Court is through a carefully Some say we can still teach about re amendment? worded constitutional amendment. This ligion in public schools. Is this true? The first amendment has already been we propose. Religion is more than dates and pic tampered with by the Court. We propose What did the Court really do? tures and which Pope ruled when and simply to restore it to its original and who reformed what. Religion is essen traditional meaning. Senate Joint Reso As in all Court decisions there are tially affective, the up-reach of the spirit lution 6, a sample of possible prayer brave and good words here. What is im toward a concerned God. Religion, amendment wording, reads: portant, however, is not the incidental stripped of affection and spirit, is not remarks but the deed of the decisions. Nothing contained in this Constitution religion at all. Teaching about religion ~hall abridge the right of persons lawfully President Abraham Lincoln had once may be useful. It cannot suffice. Besides assembled in any public building which is commented on the Dred Scott decision- any surviving religion in public schools, supported in whole or in part through the When all the words, the collateral matter while it may last for a time, will most expenditure of public funds, to participate was cleared away from it, all the chaff was surely be subject to attack by the same in nondenominational prayer. fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity. intolerant few who succeeded in having Would not a "sense of the Senate Such is the case here. In its first de the prayer-ban decisions handed down. resolution" be enough? cision, the Court equated "establish Besides, to accept teaching about religion There are some Congressmen who may ment" with public reverence, whether in place of the civil right of free school be using this device honestly. We can free or not, whether institutional or not, prayer does absolutely nothing to erase not help but feel, however, that many whether sectarian or not. In its second the fatal precedent now placed by the are using it dishonestly. A sense of the decision, the Court said that even to two prayer-ban decisions. Senate resolution would change nothing question the historic validity of this What about substitutions for prayer in whatsoever. Only a carefully worded equation was "of value only as academic the public schools, such as meditation, amendment will accomplish what must exercises." Inserted into such an equa classe~ in comparative religion, God be done--namely, a fundamental re tion, despite the Court's occasional as sandwiched between Buddha and Ein versal of the two prayer-ban decisions. surance to the contrary, all practices of stein in a series of morning exercises? Suppose the Court in fact accurately public reverence among us must fall. The same argument holds as in the interpreted the words of the first amend This, in fact, is what the Court did. The paragraph above. Many proposed sub ment? fight for a peoples' amendment for pub- stitutions are not religion at all. Medita- Even if this were true--and it is not- 5306 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS February 27, 1970 still our case remains. The people must What connection is there between the Investigate the Effects of Atomic Radiation; not be made prisoners of words which do prayer-ban decisions and national Subcommittee on Radiological Dosimetry, not say what they clearly wish the sanity? ICRU; Ad Hoc Committee on RBE of the ICRP and ICRU; Armed Forces Panei on Ra amendment to say. We cannot, nor do we, contend that all diological Instruments; Scientific Advisory Does not religion belong rather in the tragic occurrences in the United Board, USAF; Chairman, Radiation Study home and church than in school? States since 1962 can be traced back to Section, National Institutes of Health; Di Religion belongs everywhere in the the prayer-ban decisions. We do suggest rector, Commission on Radiation Infection, life of a reverent republic. We do not, a serious decline in morality among us. AFEB; Chairman, Radiation Bio-E.ffects Ad certainly, strengthen religion in the We do point to anarchy, arrogance, visory Committee for the Division of Radio crime increase, oversexism, and all the logical Health (Department of Health, Ed h.)ads and hearts of children by wiping ucation and Welfare); Member, Aeromedical it off their lips in the place where they rest.