The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1812 on Sept. 20, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 20, 1995
Mr. HAMILTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington Report for Wednesday, September 20, 1995 into the Congressional Record.
Religion and Government
For most Hoosiers I meet with, religion is very important. Religion helps form the values and character critical for strong families and communities, and faith has played an important role in the history of our nation. Today, more Americans believe in God and attend religious services than any other industrialized nation. Yet many Hoosiers worry that our political culture does not take religion seriously. This is a legitimate concern.
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. To do so, it prohibits Congress from establishment of religion. At some periods in our history the concern was that religion had too much influence over public policy, but today the concern is that we do not permit enough religious influence in public policy. I think we should take religion seriously, and do not agree with those who trivialize matters of faith. I agree with Hoosiers who want to seek guidance from religion on moral decisions--including decisions about politics and government. As the son and brother of ministers, faith has always been important to me and my family, and there is no question my faith has a strong influence on my actions as an individual and as a public official.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding over the proper role of religion in government, and government in religion. Most agree that the government should not be in charge of any religious activity--in churches, public schools, or elsewhere. Most also agree that government officials should not tell us how to pray, what to pray, or when to pray. At the same time, an individual's right to practice his or her religion should be sacrosanct.
Our founding fathers were deeply suspicious of too much government involvement in religion. Over the years the Supreme Court has made clear that neither states nor the federal government can set up a church, pass laws to fund religion, or favor one religion over another. Unfortunately there are still gray areas in the law that need to be resolved--particularly regarding religion and public schools. Uncertainty over what the Constitution permits has led many schools to suppress religious activity and has prompted hundreds of lawsuits that could have been avoided. This newsletter is simply an effort to identify what is permissible under current law and what is not, and what areas need clarification.
The First Amendment imposes two equally important obligations on public schools. First, schools may not forbid students from expressing their personal religious views solely because they are religious in nature. For example, the 1984 Equal Access Act, which I cosponsored, requires schools to give the same access to student religious groups as other extracurricular student clubs. The Court recently upheld the constitutionality of this law. Second, schools may not endorse a particular religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. For example, school officials may not tell students what to pray in class.
Many people believe the law requires schools to be religion-free zones. I do not think that is an accurate view; there are many acts of religious faith in school that are both appropriate and constitutional.
permitted activity
According to recent Justice Department guidelines, students today in public schools have the right to pray and study religion individually, to discuss religion with other students, to read the Bible or other religious texts, to say grace before meals, to be taught about the importance and influence of religion, to meet in religious clubs before and after class hours, to express their religious beliefs in classwork, and to wear clothing or jewelry bearing religious messages or symbols.
prohibited activity
These actions are not allowed: religious services organized by school officials, religious harassment, teaching students to practice a particular religion, teaching or officially encouraging religious or anti-religious activity, and denying school rooms to religious groups if they are provided to other private groups.
Often actions to suppress legitimate activity are a result of school administrators who are simply not clear about complex court decisions and who fear litigation. There are isolated examples where students were told they could not say grace before lunch, or carry a Bible in class. The school was wrong in these cases. While I understand the difficulties confronting administrators in understanding the law, the suppression of religious expression is just as much a violation of the First Amendment as imposing a religion on students.
Of course, there are issues that still need clarification. For example, does a graduation prayer by a student amount to state-sponsored action? Courts have issued contradictory opinions on this issue, and the implementation varies from region to region. Ultimately, this issue should be resolved by the Supreme Court or Congress. In the meantime, many students have organized independent prayer services before or after graduation.
Some Members of Congress have suggested amending the Constitution to clarify some of these gray areas. Others believe Congress should act by statute, as it has in the past. Congress has previously considered provisions to protect moments of silent prayer and to allow students to engage in voluntary vocal prayer during noninstructional periods. Yet these issues have not been resolved, and further clarifications are necessary.
I am encouraged by the new dialogue on religion and public education. We are certainly getting a better understanding of what can and cannot be done. There is absolutely no reason to think that religious expression has to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. With the help of clergy, parents, teachers, and students, Congress should continue to clarify current law to avoid misunderstanding.
It is important to recognize that our founding fathers knew that religion gave our people the character and virtue without which a democracy cannot survive. They also recognized that, in a free country, government must not be permitted to coerce the conscience of any person. Our challenge is to maintain religion's protection from heavy-handed state interference while preserving the environment that has made the United States the most religious nation in the world.
____________________
