Newsroom

WASHINGTON—A Muslim student banned from wearing her head scarf at school and a senior citizen who was unable to pray before meals at a city-owned senior center were among the witnesses Tuesday at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The panel heard from lawmakers, citizens and legal scholars to examine hostility toward religious expression in the public square. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the subcommittee, led Tuesday's hearing."Government should not discriminate against private expressions of faith, and in favor of only nonreligious private speech, yet that is precisely what is happening, all across the country." Chairman Cornyn said at the hearing. "Indeed, the First Amendment specifically protects private religious expression in the public square by guaranteeing both the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech against government interference."Cornyn said he called the hearing to focus on examples of hostility toward private expressions of faith in the public square, as well as discrimination against religious expression in government speech. The hearing also examined the views of the Founders regarding the free exercise of religion and the inconsistent jurisprudence in the area of religious expression.Subcommittee members at the hearing, entitled Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square, heard from Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on legislation introduced by these Senators to protect expression in the public square. Citizens invited to testify by the chairman were William "Barney" Clark of Balch Springs, Texas, and Nashala Hearn of Muskogee, Okla. Chairman Cornyn also invited Kelly J. Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute of Plano, Texas, whose organization represented Clark and his fellow seniors in the Balch Springs case, and the Honorable Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The panel also heard from legal and constitutional scholars, including Professor Vincent Phillip Muñoz of North Carolina State University, and Professor Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School."Given the troubling and incoherent jurisprudence surrounding this issue, it is no surprise that local governments have too often demonstrated similar hostility to religious expression," Cornyn said. "Whether out of ideological motivation, ignorance of the law, or simple fear of litigation, local governments across the nation have repeatedly attempted to banish faith from the public square. Americans should never have to hide their faith. They have the constitutional right to exercise their faith openly – not just at home, but in the public square as well."Sen. Cornyn chairs the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights. He is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee and served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge. * * *Chairman Cornyn's Opening statement as preparedThe U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether the First Amendment forbids school teachers across America from leading students in the voluntarily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, simply because the Pledge affirms what we all know to be true – that our nation was founded "under God." [Elk Grove Unified School Dist. V. Newdow (2004).]The Senate has unanimously and repeatedly condemned the Ninth Circuit's contrary ruling striking down the Pledge. A majority of the members of this subcommittee filed the first amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the Pledge on the merits. And the vast majority of Americans agree with the Senate – rather than with the Ninth Circuit and the ACLU – on the constitutionality of the Pledge.But however the Court ultimately rules, the Pledge case reminds us of a broader, systemic problem caused by the Court's previous rulings: an unjustifiable hostility to religious expression in public squares across America. And just as there is bipartisan agreement on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, so should there be bipartisan agreement that government should never be hostile to expressions of faith.Accordingly, our hearing today is entitled "Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square." Our witnesses will examine issues of government discrimination against religious expression generally – including both discrimination against religious versus non-religious expression in government speech, as well as discrimination against purely private expressions of faith.THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BADLY MISUNDERSTOODIt's difficult to think of a provision of the Constitution that has been as badly misunderstood and misapplied as the First Amendment – or with worse consequences for our coarsened culture and discourse.The First Amendment contains two important provisions with respect to religious liberty. It protects the "free exercise" of religion against government interference or intrusion. And it also provides that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion."The Founders included the Establishment Clause, because they wanted to forbid government from taking any action either to establish an official state church, or to favor a particular religious denomination in any other way.Notably, nothing in these provisions requires government to be hostile to religion overall. The Constitution nowhere requires government to expel expressions of faith from the public square. Nor does the Establishment Clause forbid government from acknowledging, indeed celebrating, the important role that faith has historically played in the lives of the American people – dating back to the Founders themselves.This week, the nation mourns the passing of a great man, President Ronald Reagan. I think he spoke for the American people when he said in 1983, and I quote: "When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself."REFERENCES TO FAITH PERMEATE OUR GOVERNMENTAfter all, references to faith permeate our nation's history. References to faith can be found across our nation's most important institutions of government, in our fundamental legal documents, and on our cherished cultural treasures. Our currency is emblazoned with the phrase "In God We Trust." The public buildings of all three branches of government – including the U.S. Supreme Court – are decorated with numerous references to God. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the Founders' "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." It talks about "nature's God" and our "Creator," while the Constitution refers to "our Lord."An act of Congress authorized President Washington to issue the nation's first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Moreover, that Proclamation specifically referenced the "duty of all Nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." And on the very day that Congress proposed the First Amendment, it also approved the Northwest Ordinance, which explicitly directed to U.S. territorial governments that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."So there is ample precedent and strong tradition to support government speech that acknowledges, accommodates, and indeed celebrates the importance of faith in the lives of the American people.