A Policy Statement of the National Council of the A PRONOUNCEMENT Churches of Christ in the United States of America THE CHURCHES AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS As Christians we acknowledge God as the ground and source and confirmer of truth, whose Spirit is ever ready to respond to men's and children's search for understanding by correcting their fumbling misapprehensions and leading them into larger and fuller truth. Teaching and learning at their highest are pursued within this recognition. As Americans we are firmly committed to the right of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, that is, the freedom of each citizen in the determination of his religious allegiance, and the freedom of religious groups and institutions in the exercise and declaration of their beliefs. The American tradition with respect to the relations of government and religion, often described as "separation of church and state" does not mean that the state is hostile toward, or indifferent to, religion. On the contrary, governments-national, state and local-have prevailingly acknowledged the importance as well as the autonomy of religion and have given expression to this principle in many ways. In present-day American society, with its diversity of religious conviction and affiliations, the place of religion in public education must be worked out within this recognition of the prevailingly positive attitude of the American people as a whole toward religion and safeguarding of religious liberty... As Christians we believe that every individual has a right to an education aimed at the full development of his capacities as a human being created by God, his character as well as his intellect. We are impelled by the love of neighbor to seek maximum educational op portunities for each individual in order that he may prepare himself for responsible participation in the common life. CONCERN FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS We reaffirm our support of the system of public education in the United States of America. It provides a In this document the trims "public elication" and "pabile schools" Are taken to mean the system of public elementary and secondary education in the United States. 13.5-1 context in which all individuals may share in an education which contributes to the full development of their capacities. It serves as a major cohesive force in our pluralistic society. We also recognize that significant value derives from the fact that this system is financed by public funds, is responsive to the community as a whole, and is open to all without distinctions as to race, creed, national origin, or economic status. DEFINITION OF ROLES Religious ideas, beliefs, values, and the contributions of churches are an integral part of our cultural heritage as a people. The public schools have an obligation to help individuals develop an intelligent understanding and appreciation of the role of religion in the life of the people of this nation. Teaching for religious commitment is the responsibility of the home and the community of faith (such as the church or synagogue) rather than the public schools. We support the right of religious groups to establish and maintain schools at their own expense provided they meet prescribed educational standards. We support also the right of parents to decide whether their children shall attend public or non-public schools. The parent who chooses to send his children to a non-public school is not excused from the respon sibility of the citizen to support and seek to improve the public schools. Neither the church nor the state should use the public school to compel acceptance of any creed or conformity to any specific religious practice. It is an essential task of the churches to provide adequate religious instruction through every means at their disposal. These include both those activities which individual churches provide within their own walls and also various joint ventures of churches involving cooperation with the public schools. Christian nurture and the development and practice of Christian worship are inescapable obligations of the congregation and the family. We warn the churches against the all-too-human tendency to look to the state and its agencies for sup port in fulfilling the churches' mission. Such a tendency endangers both true religion and civil liberties. At the same time, we call the churches to renewed worship, study, work and sacrifice to fulfill their mission as God's people in the world. PLACE OF RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS No person is truly educated for life in the modern world who is not aware of the vital part played by religion in the shaping of our history and culture, and of its contemporary expressions. Information about religion is an essential part of many school subjects such as social studies, literature and the arts. The contributions of religious leaders, movements, and ideas should be treated objectively and broadly in any presentation of these subjects. Public school administrators and textbook producers are to be commended for the progress made to date in including objective information about religion in various subject matter fields. Teachers should be trained to deal with the history, practices, and characteristics of the various religious groups with competence and respect for diverse religious convictions. Their greatest influence will be through the life and attitudes they reflect in the classroom. They should be free as persons to express their own convictions in answer to direct questions from pupils when appropriate to the subject matter under study. The full treatment of some regular school subjects requires the use of the Bible as a source book. In such studies-including those related to character development-the use of the Bible has a valid educational purpose. But neither true religion nor good education is dependent upon the devotional use of the Bible in the public school program. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Regents' Prayer case has ruled 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 part of a religious program carried on by the government." We recognize the wisdom as well as the authority of this ruling. But whether prayers may be offered at special occasions in the public schools may well be left to the judgment of the board responsible for the program of the public schools in the local community. While both our tradition and the present temper of our nation reflect a preponderant belief in God as our Source and our Destiny, nevertheless attempts to establish a "common core" of religious beliefs to be taught in public schools have usually proven unrealistic and unwise. Major faith groups have not agreed on a formulation of religious beliefs common to all. Even if they had done so, such a body of religious doctrine would tend to become a substitute for the more demanding commitments of historic faiths. Some religious holidays have become so much a part of American culture that the public school can scarcely ignore them. Any recognition of such holidays in the public schools should contribute to better community understanding and should in no way divert the attention of pupils and the community from the celebration of these holidays in synagogues and churches. We express the conviction that the First Amendment to our Constitution in its present wording has provided the framework within which responsible citizens and our courts have been able to afford maximum protection for the religious liberty of all our citizens. CHURCH SUPPORT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS American public education should have the full and conscientious support of Christians and Christian churches. Therefore, we urge our constituency to con tinue efforts to strengthen and improve the American system of public education through positive steps such as the following: 1. Providing intelligent appraisal and responsible criticism of programs of public education; 2. Keeping informed about the needs of the public schools and studying issues related to public education as a basis for intelligent action as citizens; 3. Supporting able candidates for boards of education and being willing to serve as members of such boards; 4. Working at local, state, and national levels for improved legislative and financial support of public schools; 5. Emphasizing to prospective and present teachers the profession of public school teaching as a vocation that is worthy of the best service a Christian can give; 6. Exploring cooperative arrangements of the churches and schools whereby the church's teaching of rehgion may be improved. In American education, there is a substantial inter-relation between primary, secondary and higher education. It needs to be stressed that, in a substantial majority of publicly-maintained institutions of Higher Education, provision is offered for the voluntary election of courses in religion on a parity with all other subjects of the curriculum, and not infrequently for publiclysupported chaplains and other services of religion. The question should be explored whether these arrangements through which religious instruction and services are provided within state institutions of Higher Education without infringement of law or offense to individual conscience may not offer suggestion for more adequate provision within the public schools of opportunities for the study of religion where desired, fully within the constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and of religious expression. 65 FOR, 1 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION NOTE - The Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America has indicated that it disclaims and dissociates itself from this pronouncement. 13.5-2 RESOLUTION ON PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A. 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10115 Adopted by the Governing Board Whereas, in a Policy Statement entitled "The Churches and the Public Schools," adoped June 7, 1963, the Governing Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. said: "Neither the church nor the state should use the public school to compel acceptance of any creed or conformity to any specific religious practice..."; Whereas, the same Policy Statement also stated: "The Supreme Court of the United States in the Regents' Prayer Case has ruled 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 part of a religious program carried on by the government.' We recognize the wisdom as well as the authority of this ruling..."; Whereas, the same Policy Statement continued: "We express the conviction that the First Amendment to our Constitution in its present wording has provided the framework within which responsible citizens and our courts have been able to afford maximum protection for the religious liberty of all our citizens..."; Whereas, the President of the United States has recently announced his intention to propose to Congress a constitutional amendment which could lead to the reinstatement of group prayer in public schools; Whereas, the recitation of prescribed nondenominational prayer demeans true religion by denying the traditions of faith groups while imposing on some children religious practices which are offensive to them; and Whereas, there is a danger that the rights of members of minority religions would not be adequately protected; Therefore, be it resolved that the Governing Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.: Reaffirms its belief, as set forth in the Policy Statement on "The Churches and the P Schools" that "Christian nurture and the development and practice of Chr. an wo are unescapable obligations of the congregation and the family"; and Reaffirms its support of the Supreme Court language describing the First Amendment as providing no role for government in prescribing or providing for prayer in public schools. Policy Base: The Church and the Public Schools, adopted by the General Board, June 7, 1963. The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased now to hear from the American Jewish Congress. STATEMENT OF JOEL H. LEVY Mr. LEVY. Thank you, Senator. My name is Joel Levy, and I appear here as cochair of the Governing Council of the American Jewish Congress. We have previously testified on Senate Joint Resolution 73, and we are opposed to that proposed constitutional amendment. I do not intend to repeat our testimony on that. I would like to spend a moment on section 1 of the Hatch amendment which is before the subcommittee today. Section 2 is being addressed in a statement prepared on behalf of the National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty and the National Education Association. We join in that presentation on section 2 of the Hatch proposal. But I would like just to keep my remarks on the so-called silent prayer or meditation proposal contained in section 1 of the Hatch amendment. First, I think I should say a brief word about the commitment of the American Jewish Congress to the principle of religious liberty and the leading role that we have taken to support and defend the principle of the first amendment, separation of church and state. Our reasons for that are diverse. They are particularly important, though, when it comes to the public schools, for which the Jewish community and all minority communities in this country have a special place in their hearts. The public schools are a forum not for divisiveness, not for religious strife, not for the inculcation of partisan separation or religious separation. They are a means of educating our young people in American democracy, bringing new groups into the mainstream of American life, and not as a forum for religious partisanship. Any attempt to stick the nose of the camel into the tent of the public schools, in terms of religious freedom, is to us a serious, serious threat to the fabric of our society and the strengths of American democracy. We think the schools should be free of any kind of religious partisanship; that they should not be entangled bureaucratically with the teacher and parent associations, principals, politicians, deciding the manner in which socalled religiosity should be inculcated in our young people. That is the job of the church and the home. Therefore, we strongly oppose President Reagan's proposal, and for much the same reason, we think it is a mistake for section 1 of the Hatch Act to be considered as a constitutional amendment. We are troubled, as other witnesses have stated, either because it is pernicious, or because it is unnecessary. If it were truly unnecessary, I would be less concerned, but I have a deep concern that there will be attempts to construe the language in ways, particularly against the background against which it has been proposed, with the so-called perception that God has been banned from the public schools, as a means of reintroducing religion, partisan religion, into the schools. Reference has been made to the use of the language referring to individual or group prayer, and we, too, have trouble with that concept. I do not know the distinction between individual prayer and group prayer, except that it will somehow engage school authorities in the job of separating students by their religion. I could foresee that at the beginning of the day, Catholic students would go to one room for their group silent prayer, the Methodists to another room, Jews to a third room. That may seem farfetched, but I do not know how to pour meaning into those words, other than to fear that they would be used to manipulate the concept of religious freedom in a way that would be quite contrary to the separation of church and state embodied in the first amendment. We also are troubled with the question of what is voluntary, and what is required, particularly with young children. How do you explain to a first-grader or a second-grader what he is required or not required to do? How does one not participate in a moment of silence, if it is supposed to have a religious content? All of these concerns lead us to believe that it would be a serious mistake to amend the Constitution to try and resolve a problem which depends so much upon the particular application of the facts and should be reviewed on an ad hoc basis in our view, under the first amendment, by the judiciary, to see if it passes muster under our traditional concept of separation of church and state. Other than that, Senator, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment, and we would join with Mr. Derschowitz on the "equal access" provision and the comments of PEARL and the National Education Association Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you are opposed to both the administration proposal and the subcommittee's alternative? Mr. LEVY. Yes, we are. The CHAIRMAN. I am a little puzzled. We have had prayers in schools here for 170 years, and your organizations have never raised any points until the Supreme Court handed down a decision. I wonder why that is. Mr BAKER. Because we have done something wrong for 170 years does not make it right. But the point is simply that until the Court ruled in 1940 that the 14th amendment made the religion clauses of the first amendment applicable to the States, there was no standing, and there was no case that could be brought against actions of the States. So it has been since 1940 only that we have known that these religious clauses limited the States. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it seems like somebody would have raised the point in 170 years. Reverend KELLEY. Senator, in a number of State courts, it was raised, but not as a matter of Federal constitutional law. The State courts decided in both directions. As was pointed out, there are a number of States, particularly in the West, where I come from, where there never was prayer in public schools for that reason. Reverend BERGSTROM. I would like to underscore that, Senator―― The CHAIRMAN. Well, still, I say 170 years is a long time, and it is kind of strange that no one raised the point, no one tested it, no one went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and then, when the Supreme Court handed down their decision, everybody seems to feel, well, that is it. I mean, it is a little strange, don't you |