Sivut kuvina

1. Community leadership-religious and secular-must have a positive outlook and sense of direction in the matter of their participation in religious exercises.

2. There must be cooperation between various faiths in the community. As a minimum, representatives of the major faiths must either agree on a common version of Scripture or be willing to permit readings from any version acceptable to a participating faith, and adopt a program of readings.

3. Time must be obtained on a public-service basis from radio stations that reach the community. Boston's plan seems to have little impact because of failure on this point. A high school teacher there told me that time on a network radio station would be necessary to make the program go.

I called an acquaintance on the staff of a New York City station and asked him what chance the program would have of getting time on his outlet. "Sell the station manager," he told me, "and it would go right into the schedule." The disk jockey of a well-known morning radio show in Washington, D.C., felt that the Worcester program, in abbreviated form, could fit into his format, which includes a hymn each morning.

4. Adult leadership of the program must be willing to give it adequate publicity. Remember, the public school system itself cannot be used.

5. Youth themselves must be interested in the program. If the program fails to capture the imagination and interest of a significant percentage of a community's youth, it will probably die a quick death. "We're not looking for the program to compete rating-wise with other morning features," a Worcester radio station manager told me, "but we want to make sure it is reaching the youth it's intended for."

If it does nothing else, Worcester's radio Bible-reading program should encourage family worship, Bible reading, prayer, and religious discussion in the home, where parents can discuss with their children the great passages of God's Word on which our nation was built.

Senator BAYH. I want to thank you, Mr. Adams, for taking the time to be with us.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. We will be in recess for an hour and 15 minutes and come back at 1:30. We have four witnesses for our afternoon session. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)


Senator BAYH. We reconvene our committee for this afternoon's session. Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Daniel J. O'Connor, the chairman of the National Americanism Commission of the American Legion.

Mr. O'Connor, we are looking forward to having your statement. I should say as a citizen, a father, and a husband of a young lady who has been actively involved in your program throughout the Nation that all of us are deeply indebted to you for this work that you do for Americanism and we are looking forward to having your testimony. STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN S. MERES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. O'CONNOR. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I wish to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity you have afford the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary in presenting our position in support of Senate

67-815-66- -35

Joint Resolution 148 with respect to a proposed constitutional amendment, which provides that nothing contained in the Constitution of the United States shall prohibit the authority administering any school, school system, educational institution or other public building supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds from providing for or permitting the voluntary participation by students or others in prayer. We fully support the prohibition against any public authority prescribing the form or content of any prayer but heartily endorse the right of any person under the first amendment to participate in prayer.

Mr. Chairman, our statement is that of the American Legion and its Auxiliary and we are not allied with any other organization. We stand completely on our own as a congressionally chartered organization dedicated to service for God and country.

We will endeavor to avoid repetitions arguments and give you our reasons in favor of such constitutional amendment, but there are a few poignant remarks which we believe are necessary in the light of statements which have appeared through the communication media concerning the motives of those who favor the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and of the Court itself.

We assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that we strongly support all three branches of the Government-the execu tive, the legislative, and the judiciary. We believe in the system of checks and balances. However, we may differ, at times, on how those functions are carried out, and more particularly whether on occasion the judiciary has preempted the authority of Congress.

While we strongly urge a constitutional amendment, we do not share that criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court which would make the judiciary a whipping post for extremists. We believe in the integrity of the Court and we respect the dignity of the judiciary as a separate institution dedicated to safeguarding our freedom through its rulings and interpretations. We will not indulge in personal attacks or recriminations. We respect the views of those who differ with us as we expect them to respect our views. We do not accuse any witness of hypocrisy or a lack of sinccerity in presenting his viewpoint, however strongly we may differ on this proposed amendment, or in the aims and purposes of our respective organizations. However, in the instant matter, we believe that if the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court validly interpret the meaning of the first amendment, then, as Americans and as war veterans, who have contributed generously to the pres ervation of our freedoms, we firmly believe that American school chil dren should not be denied the right to ask divine blessing on this country, on their parents and their teachers, and a constitutional amendment appears desirable. Our study of the first amendment convinces us that the Court erred in their prayer decisions because the history, tradition, statutes, and common law of this Nation are replete with references to the Deity and the invocation of providential aid.

We realize that much has been written and spoken concerning these decisions and we have noted the argument that those who differ with us believe their children should not have imposed on them a compulsory period of silence or separation during the recitation of a school prayer. By the same token, it can also be reasoned that the grea majority of schoolchildren, who have participated in school praver

which have not been proscribed, have been forced to accept the position of the nonbeliever. We do not charge all those who differ with us of being atheists or agnostics, but we do believe the Supreme Court of the United States has imposed a "neutralism" toward all religion which in essence is the promotion or adoption of the agnostic doctrine of nonbelief that is the direct antithesis of the belief of the Founding Fathers and succeeding generations of Americans.

We believe this decision is not in the best interest of promoting moral and spiritual values in American youth. We believe the imposition of nonbelief does not contribute to the character building of American schoolchildren. Our history and tradition has shown that, not only in the public schools but in public places, Americans have not hesitated to acknowledge their Creator and ask His blessing.

The American Legion, as America herself, "a nation founded under God" determined 47 years ago that to accomplish the worthy goals demanded of this veterans' organization, God is the Supreme Being to guide and perpetuate our heritage through constitutional government. This is so stated in the preamble to the constitution of the American Legion. The basic concepts upon which the United States was founded are contained in the Bible; the laws of the Nation are based on the world's greatest short moral code, the Ten Commandments, and since our form of government and the American way of life contain so many religious references, it would seem that our children may well be taught the reason and source of this origin. American youngsters between the ages of 7 and 21 spend more waking hours at school and school activities than they do at home and church combined. America's economic, social and political life historically has been based upon the proposition that God is the creator of all things and all life. This philosophical position sets man apart from the rest of the animal world and bestows on him certain irrevocable God-given rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The conviction of our Founding Fathers rested upon natural and divine law; that these rights were the gift of the Creator and not the object of concession by a monarch or oligarchy; and that governments existed only to protect and secure, not to abolish nor to alter these unalienable rights. The principle of divine law is older than the universe. It is universal, unchanging truth pinpointed in a discussion on the nature and purpose of man which began in Greece nearly 2,000 years ago. Around 1776, the Founding Fathers looked with favor on the philosophy of John Locke, and others, who professed an acknowledgement of the supreme dominion of the Author of life in the affairs of men. American history shows forcefully and brilliantly that our forebears of different religious persuasion repeatedly invoked the blessing of God on our country. Never before had a whole people dared to stake their lives and their futures on the truth of this assertion:

Religion and morality are our indispensable support

the Founding Fathers declared, and they added:

Whoever shall subvert these great pillars of human happiness shall not be entitled to claim the tribute of patriotism.

George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all acknowledged that religion can establish the principles upon which freedom and popular government must stand.

The liberties of a Nation cannot be thought secure if we remove the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God.

Benjamin Franklin, the oldest, and in many ways the wisest of the men who formulated our Declaration of Independence and our National Constitution, put it this way when he rose in the Philadelphia Convention to counsel his younger colleagues:

I have lived, sirs, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men.

A teacher at Fairview High School, Dayton, Ohio, remarked after the sorrowful incident of the assassination of our President in 1963 as follows:

For years here at Fairview High School we have included prayers, readings, music, as a part of our brief morning opening exercises. These prayers have included petitions for Pope John during his illness, for President Eisenhower when he had his heart attack, for the United Nations when Dag Hammarskjold was killed, for our Presidents when they took their oath of office, for our country during times of peace and during times of conflict and unrest, for members of the student body who had lost a loved one; for our school-and yet, when the United States faced its most tragic and upsetting event in recent years, we were forced to ignore the natural outpouring of our dismay and petitions simply because we happened to be in a building called a school when the tragedy struck on November 22.

This last reference was made concerning the tragic death of our late beloved President John F. Kennedy.

One of the reasons why America's Founding Fathers insisted upon the separation of church and state was because of the plurality of religion in the United States. By separating the church and state, our forefathers never excised religion. There is a tendency today, however, to argue that on account of the pluralism of religion in the United States, there should be no recognition of religion whatsoever, because it might be unfair to those who are nonbelievers or antireligious. It is well to recognize pluralism of religious sects but it is wrong to conclude that, therefore, there should be no religion. There is a sharp distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from or the complete exclusion of religion. There are basic principles which are absolutely necessary for the moral and spiritual well-being of a nation and which should never be in dispute.

Why does every President of the United States call upon God to witness the truth of the Chief Executive's pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution?

I might depart here from the text to say that only a week ago the President of the United States said a prayer "God bless you all" to the representatives of the International Association of Machinists and to the representatives of the airlines, in the hope that the airline strike would be settled. Obviously because the United States recognizes God as the Supreme Judge and Ruler over nations. President Lyndon Johnson on assuming office asked all of us to help him but also invoked the help of God in a broadcast heard all over the Nation by Americans of all ages.

No study of the first amendment would be complete without examining in events and circumstances of the time prior to and at the time of its adoption.

Almost 2 years ago we observed the 175th anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington as first President of the United States, March of 1789. About 1 week before the inaugural, the upper house of Congress passed the following resolution:

Resolved, that after the oath shall have been administerd to the President, he attended by the Vice President, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service to be performed by the Chaplain of Congress already appointed.

This measure passed both Houses of Congress literally unchanged and the inaugural service was held in St. Paul's Chapel on Broadway in New York City, performed by Rt. Rev. Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York and Chaplain of the Senate.

In view of this obvious religious ceremony, an Anglican service, what becomes of the argument advanced today by those who say the first amendment proposed by the same men in the same Congress prohibits prayers offered or sanctioned by Government officials?

According to the annals of Congress, less than 5 months after Washington's inauguration on September 24, 1789, Congress approved the First Amendment and on the very same day overrode an objection to a request by Congress calling upon the President of the United States to proclaim a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. Congress passed a joint resolution as follows:

That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.

How can anyone allege that Congress in sanctioning this prayer on the very same day it approved the first amendment intended the first amendment to prohibit public prayer?

About 8 years before the Civil War, this committee, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary expressed the view that the framers of the first amendment did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the Nation even in their public character as legislators. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln in his last debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, passed comment on the famous Dred Scott decision, which held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States.

Lincoln said:

I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. The President while maintaining deep respect for the Judiciary nevertheless expressed his sharp dissent from the Court's decision which in essence made the American Negro a chattel, not a human personality enobled by his Creator in the image and likeness of God.

When we dissent, we, too, can exercise our right to seek redress in the Congress and invoke through constitutional means, a remedy. This remedy, a constitutional amendment, was the subject of remarks by our U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in January 1964, at the

« EdellinenJatka »