between the United States and the Vatican? In view of our traditional stand against the union of church and state, why do we at this late stage of our existence need political relations with the Vatican? 3. What information is there that the Ambassador could obtain that cannot now be gotten through channels of protocol already established? Does the Vatican have military secrets which we need which only an Ambassador could get? Does the Vatican have economic, social, or even political secrets that we need and could obtain only through the services of an Ambassador? If the Vatican has this information, really as a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, should it? 4. Have we not learned the painful lessons of past centuries of the evils of marriage of church and state? Whether the church-state was Roman Catholic or hierarchical protestant? Have not the bountiful blessings of political, economic, social, and RELIGIOUS freedom we have experienced for the past two hundred years APART from all formal and/or official ties to the Vatican or any other religious group or religious state speak loudly and profoundly to us that it is the best way? 5. 6. 7. 8. Is it not strangely significant that this bold venture of the We are sure that it isn't the geographical size of the Vatican state which impressed the President to appoint an Ambassador- its size is only 108.7 acres. Baptists own and control much more geography than this...so do Mormons...and Methodists...and Episcopalians...Seventh Day Adventists...Greek Orthodox...Muslims even, and many other churches. Is it the masses of people espoused to Roman Catholicism? Is it the world influence of the Pope and especially the popularity of the present head of the Roman Catholic Church? What impressed our President to make such a move at this time? Does the President know that no genuine open hearings were held in the Senate on the propriety and expediency of his appointment of an Ambassador to the Vatican? Is the President aware of the fact that the overwhelming number of conservatives those who support him politically-are not in favor of his appointment of an Ambassador to the Vatican? Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee, we the Baptist Ministers' Conference protest most vehemently and unalterably oppose the appointment of this man and the appropriation of any funds whatever for the Ambassadorship to the Vatican by the President. Two traditional tenets of Baptists are that we contend for the largest measure of civil and religious liberty, and that we stand for the separation of church and state. It is our conviction that the appointment of an Ambassador to the Vatican is but the first in the few steps it takes to be dominated by the church. Thank you kindly. The Baptist Ministers' Conference of M.A・ Covingan Rev. Milton A. Covington, President John D. Bussey Kev. John D. Bussey, Authorized Speaker Mr. CARR. Thank you, Reverend Bussey. It is a pleasure to have you here. In the interests of time, I am going to forego any questions. Mr. O'BRIEN. I have no questions. One comment, Mr. Chairman. I think Reverend Bussey makes a good point when he says that he was not allowed the privilege of speaking before the Senate. I think you have a legitimate complaint there, and I am kind of glad that our committee is going to try to hear everybody. Reverend BUSSEY. Thank you. MR. ED DOERR, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, AMERICANS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION, AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, AND COUNCIL FOR DEMOCRATIC AND SECULAR HUMANISM Mr. CARR. Our next witness is Mr. Ed Doerr, Unitarian Universalist Association. Mr. DOERR. Thank you for allowing me to appear. I had the same problem as the previous witness who was not allowed to testify at the Senate hearing last week. My name is Ed Doerr, and I represent the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, the Americans for Religious Liberty, the last of which I serve as executive director. My church affiliation, the Unitarian Universalist Church, has taken a stand at its annual general assembly of elected delegates. I wrote the resolution which was passed in 1973 on this subject. It was passed with no opposition noticed. We take all of the groups that I represent today-take a very strong position against either the appointment of any ambassador or the appropriations or reprogramming of any funds to support such an office. I am impressed, since I presume that my written statement will be incorporated in the record, I will not read it—I am impressed by the wide spectrum of opposition to this move on the part of the Administration. It runs from the American Civil Liberties Union on one hand to Senator Jesse Helms on the other. Theologically, from the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Humanist Association to the National Association of Evangelicals and most religious bodies in between. The organization for which I work, Americans for Religious Liberties, is itself an eccumenical organization with Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Humanist, and other members. We represent the whole spectrum. I think the gentlemen from the State Department who were here earlier might serve us in foreign affairs with some distinction, but they should be a little more truthful with a congressional committee when they appear before it. They seem unable to distinguish between the Vatican City which is a small enclave in Rome and the Holy See, which is indistinguishable from the Catholic Church itself. There is no difference. Of course the President, the executive branch, has most of the prerogative in foreign affairs, and in diplomatic relations, but not exclusively. The Congress has to approve nominees to ambassadorships, the Senate does, and the entire Congress has to concur in appropriating any funds whatsoever that are used to support that. There is a possibility that if this move is not stopped by Congress, since the Administration did not see fit to examine it with great care, that it would be tested in court. However, as a previous witness, a constitutional scholar, mentioned, there might be problems in bringing the litigation, problems of standing, problems of whether they might be regarded as an international political issue and therefore not litigable. So it may be that this body, this subcommittee, or the whole Appropriations Committee, or this House may be the only forum in which these constitutional issues are aired, because the courts might not hear them. Our responsibility or the responsibility of both Houses of Congress is to look closely at the constitutionality of this move, because the courts may not have that opportunity. The gentlemen from the State Department seemed to be saying that President Reagan's move is a resumption of relations which we had with the Holy See from 1798 through 1867. That is completely wrong. The relationships which we had then were with the Papal States, a real country in the middle of Italy, with 160,000 square miles— that is about the size of the state of Maryland, I guess-and a population of three million, about three quarters of the population of Maryland. That was perfectly legitimate. If the Republic of Italy today would return the Papal States to the Vatican, and it would set up a state, I wouldn't have any problem with sending them an ambassador. But what the State Department, what the President, is doing, is sending an ambassador not to the Vatican City, which does have sovereignty, but to a church itself. It is an ambassador to the church, and that is precisely what is wrong with it. I think this move is unconstitutional, because it clearly prefers one religion over all others. It unconstitutionally creates the potential, if not the actuality, for government entanglement between our government and one church. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it will exacerbate and create tensions between different faiths in our country. It will create political divisions along religious lines. That was something the Supreme Court has warned us the 1st amendment was intended to prevent. Something else. The man who wrote the 1st amendment, James Madison, said that-what the President is doing by implication, the civil magistrate is employing religion as an instrument of civil policy. That is what the author, the primary author, of the 1st amendment said was wrong. This current President is doing something which the third President of the United States or fourth President, I am sorry, said was clearly improper. The State Department or various people have tended to confuse the President sending an ambassador to the Holy See with sending one to the Court of St. James in London. Well, our relationships to Queen Elizabeth are of a secular relationship. We are not there because she is a titular head of the church of part of the United Kingdom. It is also erroneous to equate relations with the Vatican with relations with Israel. Israel is a secular state. We are represented in secular matters with Israel. It has nothing to do with Judaism whatsoever. One might adduce another example. That is when Cyprus was headed by President Makarios who happened to be a bishop in an Orthodox Church. We had an embassy in Cyprus. It was not to Bishop Makarios as a church official, it was to Bishop Makarios as President of Cyprus. There is a great difference, which the present Administration seems not to take into account. What the President is doing is, he is conveying to Americans the impression that one faith is better than others. Since this is 1984, it reminds one of the Orwellian dictum that all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others. This line blurs our really unique American constitutional dividing line between church and state. No other country has this in its constitution. All of the other 107 countries who have embassies in the Vatican have no constitutional separation of church and state, none at all, so we are unique. If everyone else, as my father used to tell me, runs and jumps in the river, that is no reason for me to go and do so. If this action is not stopped by the Congress, this violation of the spirit and the letter of the 1st amendment will render the 1st amendment more vulnerable and more weak to other forms of erosion and attack. I think it is fine that the good offices of the people are used by some other countries to settle disputes, such as the dispute between Chile and Argentina over the Beagle Channel. Fine; those countries are predominantly Catholic countries, and they wanted to find somebody who presumably would be neutral between them to arbitrate the dispute. Fine. If Norway and Sweden should have a little dispute over a tiny island in the Arctic Ocean, perhaps they would seek some body of Lutheran bishops, since they are both Lutheran countries, to decide the matter, or if Jordan and Saudi Arabia had a quarrel over a little bit of sand someplace, they might go to some Islamic scholars. I don't see any problem with that, but none of that has to do with our extending diplomatic relations to a church. That is what is wrong. Since I was involved to a certain extent between the Nigerian civil war of 1967 through 1980, in which the Holy See played an interesting and not too well known part, where if we had diplomatic relations, diplomatic relations with the Vatican in the late 1960s-how that would have affected our possible involvement in perhaps a second Vietnam in the middle of Africa. We narrowly avoided involvement in that war. What would have happened if we had diplomatic relations with the Vatican? Lastly, as I think someone else has said and it ought to be reemphasized, the Vatican can make contributions to peace and social justice throughout the world. It doesn't need our recognition to do that. If there is any communication that needs to take place among |