My name is Melvin Adams. I understand that our full testimony will be recorded.

Senator LEAHY. Yes, sir, it will.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

I am the executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Americans United is a 35-year-old organization that is dedicated solely to the preservation of religious liberty and church-state provisions of the first amendment of the Constitution.

We represent through our membership individuals of conservative and liberal political persuasions as well as the full spectrum of religious faiths and those who are not connected with religion in any way. But all are concerned with preservation of religious liberty.

We are very concerned with the Hatch amendment because it seeks to address a problem before it has been dealt with by the courts. The Supreme Court has never ruled that truly voluntary individual prayer, group silent prayer, or meditation in public school violate the first amendment. The Court has never construed that the first amendment prohibits access of voluntary religious groups from public school facilities. It is imperative to allow the Court to address these items before taking the drastic step of a constitutional amendment.

By using such terms as "silent prayer" and "meditation," the Hatch amendment is obviously attempting to reduce the religious exercise to a minimum, thereby reducing the opposition to a minimum and apparently, hoping in some way to introduce some kind of religious exercise into the public schools.

I think we should ask the question: What is the object, what is the goal of those who propose school prayer?

Last fall, I was given an answer at least from one individual. A panel was discussing prayer in the public schools. One of the members was an attorney, very active among the groups promoting school prayer. I suggested to this gentleman that he teach his children to have silent prayer at their desks before the bell rang and before school would begin. His answer was very clear. He indicated that was not enough. He wanted the Government, he said, to recognize religion, and he said, this is just the first step. I think we need to realize that what we are talking about today is not a final, but it is the first step in many people's thinking.

Americans United also oppose the "equal access" section of the Hatch amendment, because the wording is very vague; it is fraught with problems. We accept the concept of "equal access," but there is nothing in this to prevent the school from using its public address system, its teachers, its bulletin boards, its school papers or otherwise to advocate religion. There is nothing to prevent the clergy or outside religious organizations from swarming into the school and using the school as a platform for church activities and evangelism.

Speaking of the original Supreme Court school prayer decision, President John Kennedy reminded us 20 years ago that the practice of prayer and religious devotion is best-suited to the home, the church, and the synagogue, and his advice is good today. In fact, it was the advice and the philosophy of my parents. I learned to pray

at my mother's knee. In my home, we had worship in the morning and in the evening, when we all took part in prayer. We prayed before each meal. We prayed before going to bed at night. In fact, I come from a long line of praying people. My grandfather, who was a minister, had the same philosophy with his family and his prayers. My father was a minister. My four uncles were ministers. They all had the same philosophy. There was prayer. My brother and I are both ministers. My two sons are ministers-all with the same philosophy of prayer. They are all opposed to school-sponsored prayers or organized prayers-in the public schools.

I have rehearsed this little bit of personal history because of something that took place here in the Congress-or rather, I should say, on the Hill-this last Thursday. At that time, on the Capitol Grounds, a film was shown entitled, "School Prayer-Now or Never." The film charged that church-state separation is a concept "straight out of Moscow." Senator Jesse Helms appeared in the film and arranged, I understand, for its showing. I am shocked, Senator, that such shameless, McCarthyite "red-baiting" would take place in our Nation's Capitol. As an ordained minister of the gospel, I am appalled that supporters of Government-sponsored school prayer feel free to slander those of us who are born again, Bible-believing, praying Christians, because we oppose them, because we are defending the religious liberty provisions of the first amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the tactics used by some of these proponents of this amendment raise serious questions about their intent. I think we need to remember what they are telling us. This is the first step. We believe that the intent is to create an hysterical atmosphere which can rush this thing through and which might rightly be called a new McCarthyism.

Americans United urges the defeat of the Hatch amendment and Senate Joint Resolution 73.

Thank you, Mr. Senator.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. [The following was received for the record:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. MELVIN ADAMS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is W. Melvin Adams. I am Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Americans United is a 35 year-old organization dedicated solely to the preservation of the religious liberty and church-state separation provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

We represent through our membership individuals of conservative and liberal political persuasions as well as the full spectrum of religious faiths and those who are not connected with religion in any way. But all are concerned with the preservation of

,

religious freedom.) Merty.

Many of our members, who are of various religious faiths, have strong convictions about prayer. But all are alarmed at the prospect of government involvement in this strictly religious issue. It is this unique ability to appeal to people of such diverse political and religious backgrounds and beliefs which especially qualifies this organization to testify on such a controversial issue as this proposed amendment.

The diversity in Americans United's own membership symbolizes the diversity of religious beliefs in this country, which is one of this nation's greatest strengths. We are very concerned because we believe that religious liberty and true freedom of religious expression would be greatly weakened by this amendment.

a number of reasons for our concern.

There are

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT JUST ONE DAY OF HEARINGS

We are concerned with the manner in which these hearings have been conducted. As opponents of this amendment over the past several weeks, we have literally been forced to fight with this Committee for hearings, only then to receive one day.

Any genuine consideration of a constitutional amendment should involve numerous days of public discussion permitting all organizations to testify as well as members of Congress and consti

tutional scholars. The single day for a hearing has forced us into a limited witness list because of scheduling difficulties.

And it

does not allow for a thorough reflection and discussion of all aspects and ramifications of this amendment.

SILENT PRAYER

This amendment is drafted in vague and misleading language. Many adults do not understand or practice "silent prayer" let alone children. Prayer for one child may involve bowing his head. Others, however, may kneel, make the sign of the cross or even face the East toward Mecca.

Furthermore, if teachers are to fulfill their role in the classroom, it may be necessary to explain silent prayer to students. Difficulties could arise if they do not feel comfortable in that

role.

Is the government going to issue through the Department of Education guidelines for teaching "silent prayer" in the public schools?

We are also concerned with the word "meditation" used in Section 1. One dictionary definition describes the word meditation as "a devotional exercise of contemplation."

Meditation has the same intent as prayer. It has religious connotations that can be construed to include religious practices, such as Transcendental Meditation (TM), an offshoot of Hinduism. Americans United won a suit in New Jersey in 1977 against the use of TM in public schools. The courts held that TM is a religion and therefore could not be incorporated into public school curricula. There are other variants of this kind of religion that could easily be slipped into public school curricula under the guise of "meditation."

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED RELIGION PROVOKES STRIFE

It is easy to provoke religious strife in our public schools. The following are three examples from the past year.

In Little Axe, Oklahoma, the state's so-called Voluntary Prayer Law resulted in weekly prayer meetings and "sharing sessions" on public school grounds, with faculty and outside religious group involvement. When two Christian parents objected that the school was usurping their rights in religious education, they were harassed by the community.

Both have been forced to leave their

homes and move to another town. One of the parents, Mrs. Joanne Bell, was beaten by a school employee. Later, her home was burned

to the ground in an act of arson.

In Bristol, Virginia a Methodist couple objected to the biased religious content of a so-called "voluntary" Bible class for fourth and fifth grade students in their public school. The couple's children were subjected to repeated acts of hostility and browbeating from their classmates and teachers. They have now filed suit in a Federal Court to halt this practice. The family has suffered harrassment, threats and ostracism as a result. A meanspirited and vindictive campaign has been mounted to keep the religion classes, dividing the community.

A similar situation occurred in Reidsville, North Carolina when an Episcopalian lawyer and Sunday School teacher discovered that his faith was being slandered by a public school Bible teacher in another "voluntary" class situation. His daughter was upset by the teacher's assertion that her religion was against the Bible. This gentleman convinced the local school board to halt the class. But his victory has also resulted in ostracism and hatred.

COURTS HAVE POINTED OUT THE DANGERS

Since Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and Abington

School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963), there has been an ongoing struggle between those who wish to require religious teachings and prayer in the public schools and those who contend that the Establishment Clause requires neutrality toward religion in public schools. After years of blatant attempts to reinstitute religious exercises in the public school classrooms, more sophisticated language is being used to reintroduce prayer and religious teachings on the premises of these public schools.