United States Capitol Historical Society 200 MARYLAND AVENUE, N.E. (202) 543-8919 TESTIMONY OF FRED SCHWENGEL on Request by the State Department for a Reprogramming before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE February 9, 1984 I am Fred Schwengel, President of the U. S. Capitol Historical Society and Former Member of Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before what I believe is one of the most important questions and governmental policy decisions appearing before this Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard and for all those who have deep convictions about the question of separation of church and state to appear before this committee to offer their testimony and to share their concerns. I come as a historian who is fortified by history in what I believe to be a great American tradition. I come also as a strong advocate of the importance of religion. In his farewell address, George Washington said, "Religion and morality are indespensable to political posterity." I come as a member of and believer in the Christian ideas in its broadest sense. I also come as a Baptist with roots that extend back to many hundred years in Switzerland and Germany. I come as a citizen and Former Member of Congress with experience in this question. As a Member of Congress, we successfully fought the defeat of a proposed amendment to put prayer back in school by government direction and authorship. I come as one who believes in the great American idea of separation of church and state. The importance of that concept is reflected in the Bill Of Rights. In fact, the first sentence of the First Amendment to the Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." I come as a student on this question and I share with you an experience I have with Russians when I take them on tours of the Capitol building. I speak to them in the prayer room and remind them that my country is fortified and undergirded mostly by what we call the Moral Law that teaches us not to do something because it is wrong or to do something because it is right. Moral Law is given to the American institution we call the church. I tell them that I know they have a concept of separation of church and state as we do but their application is different. Their application of freedom of religion promotes freedom from religion compared to our concept of promoting freedom of religion. Whereas, they claim they have a total of 5,000 churches in Russia; we have a total of 350,000 churches. There is a great difference in promoting religion in Russia as compared to the United States. With our concept, we promote freedom of religion with the philosophy that prevails in Russia that they promote freedom from religion. Churches in America have many shortcomings; but we are overcoming those shortcomings. There is more agreement in our pluralistic system than ever before and so I say the church under the American concept has not failed. Now we are confronted with the proposition of sending an official representative of the government to the Vatican. This, I believe, gives special recognition by the government and is therefore in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution and therefore should not be sustained or encouraged by the Congress. We have a rich heritage in America and I want to preserve it. Americans will prosper and benefit from it as indeed the world benefits from our concept of separation of church and state. "President John F. Kennedy, himself a Roman Catholic and a staunch admirer of Pope John Paul XXIII, insisted that U.S. relations with the Holy See were unconstitutional," Maddox told the Senate panel. "I respectfully submit that this committee would do well to heed President Kennedy's statement, 'I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.' We respectfully urge you to reject the confirmation of any U.S. ambassador to the Holy See." Many national religious groups joined Americans United in opposing diplomatic ties with the Holy See. They included the National Council of Churches, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. With deep convictions, I record my opposition to the appointment of an Ambassador to the Vatican. It is not necessary; it is not desirable; and it is fraught with great danger to the First Amendment which has been the guiding compass for our country since its inception. We are a pluralistic nation, with many religions, ideals, churches and denominations. From this comes our moral strength. We dilute this when we single out one church for special attention. Moreover, you endanger the peaceful harmony that now exists in our nation when you accord one church a political preference, denied the others, and thus you create another Viet Nam and another Beirut with the possible bloody clashes of Lebanon and Northern Ireland. We had similar occurrences in this country during the early growing pains. Mr. SMITH. I don't have time to go into questions with all the witnesses, but you are kind of a special witness, a former member of Congress, and you have no peer as a historian on the Capitol. We all know that, but let me ask you this, when you talk about a thorough hearing. Do you think that the hearing that will be afforded by the confirmation process-you know, in the Senate they have unlimited debate-will be adequate? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well, I suppose if the committee grants the time to this question, but from what I have been told so far, that there is not going to be enough time. Mr. SMITH. But when it comes to the Senate floor, there is no limit on it. Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is unlimited, but in the meantime, you haven't heard people who are very competent, great lawyers across this country, who have concepts about this. I just plead with you to withhold appropriations until the proper committee can fully hear and help you understand and appreciate the gravity of what you are doing. The concept of separation we have in the church has created the greatest church movement in this country, in the world. We have 350,000 churches. We have more churches per capita than anyplace in the world. We have more charity as a result. Did you see the paper the other day? $79 billion voluntarily given to worthy things across America. You wouldn't have that without the church, and so we have an arrangement here with our separation of church and state and a pluralistic society, and we are getting along beautifully. This could jeopardize that development of getting along even better, which we need to do. Mr. SMITH. We appreciate your statement, and we will—— Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. O'BRIEN. You know, Fred, I grew up in a neighborhood where things were about the same. I wasn't sure at that time whether I would see you in heaven or not, so we came up from the same society, just a different crossing of the fence. It has changed a lot. I think your point about the numbers of churches here is a brilliant one. I respect your views. I also, as a Catholic, feel rather proud of John Kennedy's support for your position here. I don't think that we have ever threatened the First Amendment with respect to this. I think our churches are closer together now than they ever were in my memory, and if I felt that it was, as you say, a great danger to the First Amendment, I would go shoulder to shoulder with you. The only feeling I have on this is that it may be a better source of information for our government, whoever runs it, and on that ground I am inclined to support it. I guess that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PORTER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. PORTER. I wonder, Fred, if you can counter for me the argument that the Holy See or the Vatican really has all the elements of a sovereign state. We maintain diplomatic relationships with other sovereign states that are religious in nature, such as Israel, or where the head of the state is also the head of the religion, such as Great Britain. How does this differ from those situations? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well, of course, I don't agree with Great Britain's concept either or with Israel's. We have a little different situation here I think. There would be created here an antipathy I think on the part of many people who are Protestants, who believe that somehow this gives the Catholics a break we don't have with government endorsement. This could grow into something really meaningful. Mr. SMITH. You are not saying it is necessarily so. You just say that is what they believe. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well, yes. It is a possibility. With your representative there, I often question the wisdom of that even, and there are many religious leaders who questioned, at the time I think Truman initiated the idea and launched that. There will be witnesses following me that can answer your question with greater authority than I can. My interest is history and I have been interested in religion. I am a believer. I am a Baptist. There are a lot of things I know you can say about us Baptists that we would find hard to defend, but one thing you can't say about us, we don't cheat on baptism. I don't want the Congress to do anything, and I suppose there isn't an individual who ever served in the Congress that respects the Congress more than I do. It is a great body, and you exemplify its greatness, Mr. Chairman, when you agree to let others be heard besides the State Department. I commend you for that, and I commend the committee for it, and I hope you will give all these people who are ready to follow me, and there are probably hundreds of them, a chance to share their concern with you. Mr. PORTER. I think all of us here share your concern about the separation of church and state. I think that this is really the issue you are raising, and the one on which we are going to listen to the witnesses very carefully, so I look forward to hearing them. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you. Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Some of the witnesses have indicated, that they cannot stay this afternoon. Let me say at this point that all of the statements will be inserted into the record, and we will have an opportunity to read them and so forth before any action is taken. Those who cannot stay for the afternoon meeting can be assured that their statement will be included in the record. DEAN M. KELLEY, DIRECTOR FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL LIBERTY Mr. SMITH. Reverend Dean Kelley, Director for Religious and Civil Liberty, National Council of the Churches of Christ. We would hope that you will abbreviate whatever you can. Reverend KELLEY. I will highlight it. Mr. SMITH. We are not trying to limit you. Reverend KELLEY. Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this subject. I will skip the description of the National Council of Churches which is in the written record and confine myself to the two reasons for our opposition. I would like to concentrate on the first one, which is theological. Our position is simple. We oppose the sending by the Government of the United States of |