« EdellinenJatka »
Here is the real crux of this whole thing, it seems to me:
The determination of what is to go on in public schools is primarily for the school authorities.
And it goes on:
Against the desire of those parents that their children be given an opportunity to acknowledge their dependence and love to Almighty God to a prayer each day in their respective classrooms, the authorities, the school authorities here, were entitled to weigh the likely desire of the parents not to have their children present at such prayers, either because the prayers were too religious or not religious enough, and the wisdom of having public educational institutions stick to education and keep out of religion with all the bickering that intrusion into the latter is likely to produce.
It seems to me if you compared the Stein v. Oshinsky case with a school board ruling that voluntary prayer was permissible, given this Court, they would have to come up with the exact opposite interpretation that they did the exact opposite findings that they did. They would have to come up and say that voluntary prayer is permissible. "The reason we didn't allow it in Stein was that the school board said they didn't want it," neither the Supreme Court or second circuit court, is going to tell a local school board they have to have prayer or some other ingredient in their curriculum. This is up to the school board. If the school board says 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes of voluntary prayer, with emphasis on the voluntary, that is all right with the Court. Someday maybe we will have this argument decided by a judicial panel that can write it into law rather than speculate on it.
Excuse me, Senator, I didn't mean to Senator HRUSKA. That is all right. Chairman.
You make a god point, Mr.
The chances are the Supreme Court might accept certiorari if the school board had decided to the contrary. I think the way the law stands, the position as it was advanced by our witness was turned down by the Supreme Court.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Yes, it was, Senator.
Senator HRUSKA. Yes. The argument you advanced.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Well, I might say this parenthetically, if the school board had said you can have voluntary prayers, the case would never have come up. This situation would never have arisen. It wasSenator BAYH. Then it would have come up with those in the classroom who did not want voluntary prayer, and then you would haveMr. BAZARIAN. Then we might have another Engel case. Senator BAYH. And you would have had the Vitale and Engel cases. Mr. BAZARIAN. You would have had the Vitale and Engel cases. Senator BAYH. You would have had a reverse twist. I think would have had another outcome. However, that is pure speculation. Senator Tydings.
Senator TYDINGS. I just have one question, Mr. Bazarian. I raise this because of the line of questions which Senator Hruska directed to you. Under your interpretation of this proposed amendment could the school board in New York have turned down the petition of the parents for the voluntary prayer?
Mr. BAZARIAN. No, they wouldn't have turned it down. They would have granted it.
Senator TYDINGS. They would have had to grant it under this amendment, is that right?"
Mr. BAZARIAN. They would have granted it.
Senator TYDINGS. Would they have been required to or not?
Mr. BAZARIAN. I would say that they would have granted it because
Senator TYDINGS. They would not be required to.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Because then the question would not have arisen. They would have granted it.
Senator TYDINGS. Do you feel that this is mandatory or not? Would they have been required to or not? In other words, suppose they turned it down, and you had gone into court. Would you have been able to rely on this amendment as authority or not?
Mr. BAZARIAN. You mean, the proposed amendment?
Senator TYDINGS. Yes.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Then I would have, yes.
Senator TYDINGS. As authority that they could not turn you down. Mr. BAZARIAN. On the theory that they would have, they should have granted it.
Senator HRUSKA. I do not understand the supposition there. The supposition there was that they would not grant it, Senator Tydings?
Senator TYDINGS. If the school board did not grant the petition of the parents to have a prayer given in the class, my question to the witness was, if this proposed amendment were enacted into law, could the school board have turned down the petition of those parents?
Mr. BAZARIAN. And I answered the question that they would have granted it, Senator.
Senator TYDINGS. You do not want to answer yes or no?
Mr. BAZARIAN. Well, I say they would not have prohibited it. Senator TYDINGS. You are an attorney with some familiarity with these cases. Would you interpret this amendment as requiring the school board to give these parents that right?
Mr. BAZARIAN. Again, I say that they would-the question would not have arisen, Senator, because they would-have granted it.
Senator TYDINGS. I am merely asking you, Mr. Bazarian, because you are a lawyer, you have argued a case in this line, and I ask you for your interpretation of this article. That is all. I think it is important that we know what your position is.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Well, I will say that they would-again I say they would not have prohibited it.
Senator TYDINGS. But you will not answer?
Mr. BAZARIAN. No, it is not that I will not answer, Senator. It is just that I think-it just would not have arisen.
Senator BAYH. Any further questions? If not, I will say to Mr. Bazarian, as we said to his predecessor, Mr. Daiker, we appreciate very much your lengthy presentation before this committee. We appreciate the contribution you have made.
Mr. BAZARIAN. Thank you.
Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much.
Senator BAYH. I will ask that the statement of Mr. Frank Korff be included in the record at the end of today's hearings.
We will be in recess until 10 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., on Tuesday, August 2, 1966.)
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
1966 STATEMENT REPUDIATING TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It has come to our attention that the National Council of Churches of Christ in America has again sent a representative to Congress, testifying in opposition to the Prayer Amendment (introduced by Senator Everett McK. Dirksen), and endeavoring to give the impression, as they have done before in regard to this particular legislation, as well as other bills and policies.
The groups of Christian Laymen and Congregations who names are appended hereto, wish to make the following statement before this Committee of the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and for the Hearing Record:
The National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America may not, and cannot, "speak for" or "represent" 40,000,000 Protestants, or any number except the individuals who have voted for this testimony, on any legislative or political matters.
As individual American voters the National Council of Churches officials may, with perfect propriety, come before this committee, or any other, and give their personal, individual opinions on such matters-provided that they make it clear that they are doing so as individuals, and not as NCC Officials "representing" the membership of that organization.
The National Council of Churches has never been authorized by the millions of members it purports to "speak for" to appear before any Congressional, State, or local committees, speaking on-or to-legislation or other matters political. They have never polled their membership in regard to any of these bills, or policies, they presume to represent such membership.
Having polled our memberships, and received complete support for this statement, and authority to represent these Committees and Congregations, we serve notice herewith that the National Council of Churches has not, does not, and may not "represent" us at these hearings.
The undersigned Laymen's groups and Congregations categorically repudiate all National Council of Churches political and legislative pronouncements and testimonies-for this particular legislation, or any other.
LAYMEN'S COMMITTEES AND CONGREGATIONS
Committee of Christian Laymen, Savannah, Georgia
Methodist Laymen of North Hollywood, North Hollywood, California
Methodist Laymen's League, Redondo Beach, California
Southern California Comm. of Christian Laymen, South Bay Chapter, Torrance, California
Southern California Comm. of Christian Laymen, Santa Ana Chapter, Santa Ana, California
St. Peter's Episcopal Church, Rosedale, Long Island, N.Y.
Episcopal Education & Information Council, St. Clair Shores, Michigan
Society of Fishermen, St. Clair Shores, Michigan
Adult Bible Class, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Chatsworth, California
Edinburg 7th Day Baptist Church, Edinburg, Texas
St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Vestry, for the Church), Oceanside, New York First Presbyterian Church, Duluth, Minnesota
Committee for Laity Enlightenment, Nashville, Tennessee
San Diego Patriotic Society, San Diego, California
National Committee of Christian Laymen, Phoenix, Arizona
Methodist Laymen of Chatsworth, Chatsworth, California
Committee of Christian Laymen, Inc., Woodland Hills, California
Women of St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Shreveport, Louisiana
Congregational "Social Action" Study Group, Sierra Madre, California
Committee of Christian Laymen of Greater Washington Area, Falls Church, Virginia
All Saints Angelican Church, Nashville, Tennessee
Leffert's Park Baptist Church, Brooklyn, New York
First Baptist Church of Van Nuys, Van Nuys, California
California Christian Citizens Association, Huntington Beach, California
Committee of Christian Laymen, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Calvary Presbyterian Church, Maspeth, New York
Committee of Nazarene Laymen (Nationwide membership), office: La Mirade, California
Authorized to present the above,
FRANK F. KORFF,
Falls Church, Va.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1966
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh presiding. Present: Senators Bayh and Tydings.
Also present: Larry A. Conrad, chief counsel, and Jay Berman, of Senator Bayh's staff.
Senator BAYH. Our subcommitee will please reconvene.
The first witness this morning is Mr. C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington.
Mr. Carlson, we appreciate your taking the time to come before our committee. We are eager to have your thoughts on the matter.
STATEMENT OF C. EMANUEL CARLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Mr. CARLSON. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to come to discuss this matter.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is C. Emanuel Carlson, and I am the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. This organization may not be known to all the members of the committee, and I shall take just a moment to explain a little of our structure and work.
There are seven Baptist conventions in the United States to cooperate to maintain a Washington observation post from which to study trends and developments, and these conventions cooperate in the support of this office and communicate the materials, findings to their several conventions and churches.
The seven conventions represent a sizable movement, somewhere between 75,000 and 80,000 congregations with approximately 22 million members, which means that our communications problem is an appreciable one, and we are considerably emphasizing all of the time the matter of communications. As a matter of fact, this is the focus of our work.
We communicate through the various channels of the various conventions. We have relatively few channels of our own, that is we do relatively little direct mail, but the columns of our papers, both the conventionwide papers and the State convention papers, are open to